[Lofepramine: a comparative clinical study with amitriptyline]. Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline and amitriptyline in hospitalized patients with major depression. Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. Randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline versus placebo for adolescents with "treatment-resistant" major depression. A comparative double-blind controlled study of trimipramine and amitriptyline in major depression: lack of correlation with 5-hydroxytryptamine reuptake blockade. Predictors of therapeutic benefit from amitriptyline in mild depression: a general practice placebo-controlled trial. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the effects of sertraline versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression. Tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of depressions. A double-blind clinical comparison of clomipramine (Anafranil) and amitriptyline. Double-blind multicenter study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed inpatients. The analgesic effect of amitriptyline on chronic facial pain. Multicenter double blind study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed inpatients. Double-blind comparison of fluoxetine and nortriptyline in the treatment of moderate to severe major depression. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline among depressed patients in general practice. A double-blind study of minaprine versus amitriptyline in major depression. Amitriptyline in the treatment of anorexia nervosa: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline versus amitriptyline in outpatients with major depression. A multicenter double-blind trial of paroxetine versus amitriptyline in depressed inpatients. A double-blind trial of maprotiline (Ludiomil) and amitriptyline in depressed outpatients. Comparative effects of amitriptyline and amineptine in patients affected by anxious depression. A multicentre double blind trial of fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in the treatment of depressive illness. A double-blind trial with amitriptyline and lofepramine in the treatment of endogenous depression. Paroxetine in the treatment of depression--a randomized comparison with amitriptyline. A randomized, within-patient, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial on the efficacy and tolerability of the tricyclic antidepressants chlorimipramine and nortriptyline in central pain. A double-blind comparison of Org 3770, amitriptyline, and placebo in major depression. Paroxetine versus amitriptyline for treatment of depression associated with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, double blind, parallel group study. Mirtazapine vs. amitriptyline vs. placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Perspectives in clinical psychopharmacology of amitriptyline and fluvoxamine. A double-blind study in depressed inpatients. A placebo-controlled multicenter trial of Limbitrol versus its components (amitriptyline and chlordiazepoxide) in the symptomatic treatment of depressive illness. Effects of desipramine, amitriptyline, and fluoxetine on pain in diabetic neuropathy. A controlled comparison of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in depressed out-patients. Double-blind comparative study of the antidepressant, unwanted and cardiac effects of minaprine and amitriptyline. Double-blind, multicenter comparison of sertraline and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. A comparison of alprazolam with amitriptyline in the treatment of patients with neurotic or reactive depression. A report of a randomised, double blind study by a General Practitioner Working Party. Amoxapine versus amitriptyline in endogenous depression. A double-blind study. LI 160, an extract of St. John's wort, versus amitriptyline in mildly to moderately depressed outpatients--a controlled 6-week clinical trial. A double-blind comparison of citalopram (Lu 10-171) and amitriptyline in depressed patients. A randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline in the acute treatment of adolescent major depression. Central post-stroke pain--a controlled trial of amitriptyline and carbamazepine. Antidepressant efficacy of sertraline: a double-blind, placebo- and amitriptyline-controlled, multicenter comparison study in outpatients with major depression. Which tricyclic for depressed outpatients, imipramine pamoate or amitriptyline? A double-blind study of dothiepin hydrochloride (Prothiaden) and amitriptyline in out-patients with masked depression. A comparison of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression. [Monitoring of the treatment of endogenous depression with imipramine and amitriptyline (preliminary report)]. Does lofepramine have fewer side effects than amitriptyline? Results of a comparative trial. A multicentre, double-blind, amitriptyline-controlled study of mirtazapine in patients with major depression. A comparison of moclobemide, amitriptyline and placebo in depression: a Canadian multicentre study. A double-blind comparative trial with mianserin and amitriptyline in outpatients with major depressive disorders. A comparative study of amitriptyline and fluvoxamine in migraine prophylaxis. Alprazolam vs amitriptyline in depressions with reduced REM latencies. Amoxapine versus amitriptyline for continuation therapy of depression. Double-blind comparative study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed patients of a university psychiatric outpatient clinic (pilot study). Clovoxamine in the treatment of depressed outpatients: a double-blind, parallel-group comparison against amitriptyline and placebo. Maprotiline-a double-blind study of a new tetracyclic antidepressant in severe depression. A double-blind evaluation of zimelidine in comparison to placebo and amitriptyline in patients with major depressive disorder. A double-blind controlled study of clinical efficacy of maprotiline and amitriptyline in depression. Paroxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depression in general practice. A double-blind multicentre comparison of mirtazapine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. A double-blind comparative trial of zimelidine, amitriptyline, and placebo in patients with mixed anxiety and depression. Comparison of the effectiveness of amitriptyline and gabapentin on chronic neuropathic pain in persons with spinal cord injury. Alprazolam, amitriptyline, doxepin, and placebo in the treatment of depression. A re-examination of the clinical effects of imipramine and amitriptyline in depressive illness. Amitriptyline in neuropathic cancer pain in patients on morphine therapy: a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study. A comparative trial of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in patients with major depressive disorder. Alprazolam and amitriptyline in the treatment of moderate depression. Acute, subchronic and withdrawal sleep EEG changes during treatment with paroxetine and amitriptyline: a double-blind randomized trial in major depression. Anorexia nervosa. Treatment efficacy of cyproheptadine and amitriptyline. Changes in weight during treatment for depression. A comparison study of amitriptyline and nortriptyline with plasma levels. A double-blind clinical trial of mianserin versus amitriptyline: differentiation by adverse symptomatology. The comparative antidepressant value of lofepramine and amitriptyline. Results of a controlled trial with comments on the scales used. Amitriptyline effectively relieves neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer. A comparison of the onset of action and therapeutic efficacy of amoxapine and amitriptyline. A controlled trial of antidepressants in patients with Parkinson disease and depression. Amitriptyline in migraine prophylaxis. Amitriptyline versus maprotiline in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. Nortriptyline versus amitriptyline in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized trial. Trazodone in depressed outpatients. Clomipramine and amitriptyline in the treatment of severe pain. Paroxetine in the treatment of elderly depressed patients in general practice: a double-blind comparison with amitriptyline. A double-blind comparative clinical study of amoxapine and amitriptyline in depressed, hospitalised patients. Fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression with associated anxiety (anxious depression): a double-blind comparison. A double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of dothiepin hydrochloride in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Gabapentin vs. amitriptyline in painful diabetic neuropathy: an open-label pilot study. Clinical activity and tolerability of trazodone, mianserin, and amitriptyline in elderly subjects with major depression: a controlled multicenter trial. Three double-blind comparative trials of mianserine (ORG GB 94) and amitriptyline in the treatment of depressive illness. Amisulpride in medium-term treatment of dysthymia: a six-month, double-blind safety study versus amitriptyline. AMILONG investigators. Viloxazine in the treatment of endogenous depression. A standard (amitriptyline) controlled clinical study. Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline in children with functional gastrointestinal disorders. Costs and outcomes of use of amitriptyline, citalopram and fluoxetine in major depression: exploratory study. Symptom relief with amitriptyline in the irritable bowel syndrome. Continuation therapy with lithium and amitriptyline in unipolar depressive illness: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. A controlled comparison of trimipramine and amitriptyline. Mianserin versus amitriptyline for depression: a double-blind 6-week trial. Cianopramine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depressed patients--a placebo-controlled study. Comparison of amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo in the treatment of fibromyalgia. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Comparison of adinazolam, amitriptyline, and placebo in the treatment of melancholic depression. Amoxapine and amitriptyline in the outpatient treatment of endogenous depression. [Comparative efficacy and tolerance of fluvoxamine and amitriptyline in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in mental hospital]. A double-blind randomized comparison of nortriptyline plus perphenazine versus nortriptyline plus placebo in the treatment of psychotic depression in late life. Once-daily treatment for mixed anxiety/depressive states: a comparison of slow release amitriptyline and fluphenazine with nortriptyline.
Lofepramine, a new tricycle antidepressant, is compared with amitriptyline in a double-blind study. A brief pharmacological description of the drug is made emphasizing its low toxicity and anticholinergic peripheral effects, high plasmatic concentration levels and good tolerance and elimination in comparison with some other known tricycle antidepressants. Sixty depressive outpatients of a Mental Health Service in Lima, 5 male and 55 female, aging 16 to 65, 29 endogenous and 31 neurotic were studied with both drugs in a equimolar dosage. Through the chi square test, no statistical significance was found in maximal therapeutic response, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores, type of depression, and side-effects xerostomy which is lesser with lofepramine. A discussion of these results is made and it is concluded that in the present study lofepramine compared with amitriptyline has a similar therapeutic effect. Though not statistically significant, lofepramine seems to be better for neurotic depression and patients sensitive to anticholinergic side-effects. Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) for which marketing approval has been obtained recently in Germany. The results of several double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that sertraline has a clear antidepressive effect. However these studies have been conducted in outpatient populations. In the context of this multicenter study, a total of 160 inpatients were treated with sertraline 50-150 mg or amitriptyline 75-225 mg over a period of 6 weeks in a double-blind fashion. Sixty-two patients in the sertraline and 59 patients in the amitriptyline group were evaluated for efficacy in the according-to-protocol (ATP) population; 80 sertraline and 75 amitriptyline patients were evaluated for safety in the Intention-to-treat population (ITT). No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in the efficacy analysis performed on the basis of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) total score and Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Due to its sedating properties, amitriptyline was found to be significantly more effective with regard to the HAM-D factor "sleep disturbance". The safety analysis, which was based on the CGI, the global assessment at the end of study and a score for somatic adverse events (FSUCL) revealed statistically significant advantages of sertraline over amitriptyline. Amitriptyline was associated with more autonomic and circulatory side effects, while epigastric complaints occurred more often with sertraline. The incidence of nausea - a typical SSRI side effect - was the same in both groups. The enhanced sensitivity of the elderly to the side effects produced by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and the frequency and type of adverse events, have made the treatment of depression in this group difficult. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been reported to produce significantly fewer undesirable side effects and display better tolerance than TCAs. We compared the therapeutic actions and side effects produced by citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, with amitriptyline in a group of elderly patients (aged 65 and older) diagnosed with major depression. In a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter comparison of citalopram (20 or 40 mg/day) and amitriptyline (50 or 100 mg/day), patients who did not respond to placebo during a 1-week single-blind phase were randomly assigned to receive citalopram or amitriptyline for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), and Clinical Global Impressions. Both drug treatments produced equivalent time-related declines in severity of depression, so that by 8 weeks slightly more than 50% of the patients in each group experienced marked recovery, defined as MADRS scores < or = 12. Amitriptyline produced a greater overall incidence of adverse events, including a significantly higher (P < 0.001) percentage of patients reporting dry mouth (34% vs. 7%), as well as a significantly higher (P < 0.02) incidence of somnolence. Constipation and fatigue also occurred more frequently in the amitriptyline than in the citalopram group. For only one event (nausea) did the citalopram group report a significantly greater (P = 0.012) incidence (12.8% vs. 4.8%). On the basis of these results, it was concluded that citalopram is as effective an antidepressant as amitriptyline in the treatment of the depressed elderly. Because of its low incidence and low magnitude of side effects, citalopram seems especially useful in private practice. To assess the response to a serotonergic/noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant, amitriptyline (AMI), in a group of adolescents with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD).
                Twenty-seven depressed adolescents admitted to a state hospital underwent a 10-week randomized, controlled trial with a flexible dose of AMI or placebo.
                There were no differences between patients taking AMI (n = 13) and placebo (n = 14). Both treatment groups showed approximately 70% to 80% improvement on the clinical outcome measurements, and 65% to 70% showed functional improvement. At the end of the protocol, 30% of patients still fulfilled criteria for MDD and had impaired functioning. Patients taking AMI experienced significantly more dry mouth and tachycardia. The final AMI dose was 173.1 mg/day +/- 56.3 mg/day; blood levels were 226.2 ng/mL +/- 80.8 ng/mL.
                No significant differences were found between AMI and placebo, in part because of the high placebo response rate. Although both treatment groups showed substantial response, at the end of treatment a substantial proportion of patients still had MDD of subsyndromal symptoms of depression. This and other studies of tricyclic antidepressants question the use of this medication as first-line treatment for youths with MDD. Thirty-four hospitalized patients with major depression were enrolled in a 3-week double-blind parallel comparative study of trimipramine and amitriptyline. Following a 1-week washout period, patients randomly received one of the two drugs up to 100 mg twice daily on a fixed increment dosage schedule. Both treatments produced a rapid significant clinical improvement that occurred in a predominantly linear fashion. The pattern of improvement was very similar with both drugs. There was no significant correlation between plasma levels of trimipramine and desmethyl-trimipramine and clinical improvement. A negative correlation between amitriptyline plasma levels and clinical improvement was found, whereas a positive correlation occurred with the nortriptyline levels. Amitriptyline, and to a lesser extent trimipramine, prolonged intracardiac conduction. In the amitriptyline group only, this effect was accompanied by significant increases of heart rate and blood pressure. Platelet serotonin content was decreased by 57% by the amitriptyline treatment but remained unchanged in the trimipramine group. This finding constitutes the first clinical evidence that trimipramine does not exert its antidepressant effect through 5-hydroxytryptamine reuptake blockade. It is proposed that neuronal sensitization to 5-hydroxytryptamine might mediate the therapeutic effect of tricyclic antidepressant drugs. General practice depressives were treated for 6 weeks with amitriptyline or placebo in a controlled trial. Overall, drug was found strongly superior to placebo. Interactions were examined between drug effects and a number of variables, principally reflecting demographic characteristics, history of illness, severity of illness, and endogenous depression separately in symptoms and stress. Only in the area of severity were significant interactions found. Amitriptyline was superior to placebo in probable or definite major depression on the Research Diagnostic Criteria, but not in minor depression. It was also superior to placebo in subjects with initial scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale of 13-15, and 16 or more, but not with lower scores. Findings indicate that tricyclic antidepressants are of considerable benefit in relatively mild depressions, except in the mildest range. This study was designed to compare the efficacy, safety, tolerability profiles, and effects on quality of life of the serotonin selective reuptake inhibitor antidepressant sertraline versus the nonselective tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline and placebo in patients with major depression.
                Outpatients with DSM-III-R major depression were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 8 weeks with sertraline (50-200 mg daily), amitriptyline (50-150 mg daily), or matching placebo. Assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale, Global Assessment Scale, Profile of Mood States, Beck Depression Inventory, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Health-Related Quality of Life battery.
                All treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement from baseline in depression ratings by Week 1 and thereafter. The antidepressant effects of amitriptyline and sertraline were significantly (p < .05) greater than placebo and did not differ significantly from each other. Sertraline was associated with significantly (p < .05) greater subjective (i.e., patient-rated) improvement in mood than amitriptyline or placebo. Both active drugs were associated with greater improvements than placebo on most quality of life measurements. On several items, sertraline, but not amitriptyline, was superior to placebo. There was a discernible effect of sertraline earlier than amitriptyline on most quality of life scales. Amitriptyline therapy was associated with significantly more treatment-related adverse events, and discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events, in comparison to both sertraline and placebo therapy.
                Sertraline and amitriptyline each were effective treatments for major depression as assessed by both physician- and patient-rated scales. These results show that sertraline therapy is better tolerated than amitriptyline therapy. Quality of life was also improved by effective antidepressant treatment, with sertraline showing a tendency to produce greater improvements on quality of life measures. The clinical efficacy of oral clomipramine and amitriptyline treatment (50--125 mg/day) was compared over a period of 2 months in 72 depressive patients visiting a psychiatric out-patient clinic. Both drugs were equally effective as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. According to a nurse's independent evaluation of 13 items the two drugs were equipotent in relieving depressive symptoms and no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were found in the global evaluation by the investigator and the patient. A trend in favour of clomipramine was, however, seen in several parameters. The declines in the Hamilton Rating Scale scores and the nurse's evaluation scores were highly significant during the first 2 weeks of treatment (P less than 0.001) in both groups and the scores continued to decrease during the 2nd month of the study. The most common unwanted effects were dryness of the mouth and fatigue. The frequency of side effects was 51% in the clomipramine group and 43% in the amitriptyline group. The side effects were generally mild and transient and called for discontinuation of treatment in only one case in each group. Paroxetine is a new compound in the group of the selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors. The results of several open and double-blind control-group studies demonstrate clear antidepressive efficacy of paroxetine. However, most data were collected in samples of outpatients. To overcome this restriction, a six-week double-blind control-group study, comparing 30 mg paroxetine with 150 mg amitriptyline per day, was performed in a sample of inpatients suffering from major depression. Generally speaking, the efficacy analysis of 160 patients was not able to demonstrate statistically significant differences in the antidepressive activity of paroxetine or amitriptyline, either with respect to the total score on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) and the Clinical Global Impressions or with respect to the subscores of the HAMD. One exception was the retardation subscore, in which amitriptyline showed a greater degree of reduction. Both drugs had a characteristic side-effect profile. Paroxetine was characterized by a lack of anticholinergic side-effects and a higher rate of nausea. The efficacy of amitriptyline was evaluated in 28 patients with chronic oral-facial pain. Most of the patients had evidence of musculoskeletal pain while some had a history suggesting pain of neurogenic origin. Two patients had mixed elements of neurogenic and musculoskeletal pain. Amitriptyline was more effective than placebo in reducing pain after 4 weeks of treatment. No effect was found after only 1 week of drug administration in either dose range. When the patients were divided into depressed and non-depressed groups based on their Hamilton depression scores, amitriptyline reduced pain in the depressed and in the non-depressed groups as compared to placebo. Amitriptyline reduced the depression scores in the depressed group but had no effect on the depression scores in the non-depressed group. Thus, pain reduction was not associated with a change in mood in the non-depressed group. Amitriptyline had no effect on patients' ratings of the intensity of experimental heat stimuli. We conclude that amitriptyline is effective in the treatment of chronic oral-facial pain and that its efficacy is independent of its effects on depression. It appears that tricyclic antidepressants act in a fashion different from opiate drugs that alter the sensory discriminative component of pain. Paroxetine is a phenylpiperidine compound which is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Ninety-one hospitalised patients with a major depression (DSM-III) aged 65 and over from six Austrian and one German center were entered into the study, which compared the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine versus amitriptyline. After 6 weeks both groups showed similarly good therapeutic results. In the paroxetine group, 64.3% of the patients had a 50% or more reduction of the HAMD total score compared to 58.1% in the amitriptyline group. Side effects were distributed similarly in both groups. Patients in the paroxetine group showed a higher incidence of anxiety and agitation; anticholinergic side effects were registered more often in the amitriptyline group. Depression is an international public health problem. Impairment in social and occupational functioning, increased comorbidity with other psychiatric and medical conditions, and an increased risk of mortality are a few of its consequences. Some psychiatrists have the impression that selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors may not work as well as tricyclic anti-depressants in severe depression and/or melancholia. On the contrary, there is a general belief that selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors are superior to the tricyclic anti-depressants in having fewer side-effects, particularly cardiovascular effects. The objective of this double-blind study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fluoxetine and nortriptyline in patients with moderate to severe major depression.
                A total of 48 adult outpatients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), forth edition for major depression, based on the structured clinical interview for DSM IV participated in the trial. Patients had a baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of at least 20. In this double-blind, single-center trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive nortriptyline 150 mg/day (group 1) or fluoxetine 60 mg/day (group 2) for 6-weeks. The outcome of the two groups was assessed using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, a side-effect checklist and a regular ECG assessment.
                The results suggest that the efficacy of nortriptyline is superior to fluoxetine in this group of major depressed patients. No significant differences were observed between dropout rates in the two groups but anti-cholinergic side-effects were significantly more frequent with nortriptyline than with fluoxetine but there was no significant difference in cardiovascular effects in particular QTc prolongation.
                The results of the current study suggest that nortriptyline was more effective than fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate to severe depression. A larger study is warranted. Depressed patients in general practice were included in a double-blind placebo-controlled six-week trial of amitriptyline (median dose 125 mg). The patients were relatively mildly ill and satisfied diagnostic criteria for depression and treatment with antidepressants in routine practice. Amitriptyline was found to be considerably superior to placebo after six weeks and significantly so as early as two weeks after the start of treatment. The effects of the antidepressant were on the core symptoms of depression, and were apparent in all but the most mildly ill patients. The findings suggest that tricyclic antidepressants are of considerable therapeutic benefit to depressed patients in general practice. This study was designed to compare the antidepressant effects of minaprine and amitriptyline in a group of 60 outpatients suffering from a major depressive episode as defined by the DSM III. The 6-week study was double-blind with a random allocation of treatment. Patients were treated with flexible daily doses of 200-300 mg of minaprine and 50-75 mg of amitriptyline. Both drugs showed significant global antidepressant efficacy with no significant difference between the two treatment groups. The Hamilton item 'psychomotor retardation' improved earlier with minaprine than amitriptyline. The incidence of anticholinergic adverse effects was significantly higher in the amitriptyline treatment group. The tricyclic antidepressant drug amitriptyline was evaluated as a short-term treatment of anorexia nervosa patients. In a 5-week double-blind, placebo-controlled study 11 patients were given amitriptyline and 14 received placebo. In addition, 18 patients who refused to participate in the drug trial and received only psychosocial treatment were used as an additional comparison group. Overall, patients in the three groups showed little improvement. No statistically significant differences favoring amitriptyline were found in any of the outcome variables. Plasma levels varied widely among patients receiving similar doses. No association was found between plasma levels and improvement in either psychiatric symptomatology or weight. Amitriptyline patients did not manifest any tendency for a reduction of depressive symptomatology. In addition, amitriptyline treatment was associated with substantial discomfort and adverse affects. To compare the efficacy and safety of sertraline and amitriptyline in a German outpatient population.
                Patients with Major Depression (DSM-III-R) and HAM-D (21 items) > or = 21 in 19 German centers received double-blind treatment with sertraline (initial dose 50 mg, titration up to 100 mg) or amitriptyline (75 mg, up to 150 mg) over 6 weeks. HAM-D (21 items), HAM-D Bech, CGI, DSI and SDS were evaluated for the efficacy analysis. FSUCL (Fischer Somatic and Undesired Effects Check List) and spontaneously reported adverse events were used for safety analysis.
                Of the 240 patients enrolled in the study, 205 (100 sertraline; 105 amitriptyline) were evaluable for efficacy. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in the ITT and ATP efficacy analyses. Response, defined as score 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) of the CGI improvement score, was 76% in the sertraline and 81% in the amitriptyline group (efficacy evaluable patients = ATP population). In the structured FSUCL, the side-effect burden (FSUCL score >2 for drug related symptoms) was significantly higher in the amitriptyline group at all follow up visits (p<0.05).
                Both sertraline and amitriptyline are suitable for the treatment of Major Depression; sertraline is comparable to amitriptyline with regard to efficacy, and offers the additional benefit of a more favorable safety profile. The phenylpiperidine derivative paroxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. In a double-blind 6-week trial, paroxetine was compared with amitriptyline in hospitalized patients suffering from major depression (DSM-III). One hundred fifty-three patients were enrolled in the study in seven centers in Austria and Germany. Results showed similar efficacy of both drugs after 6 weeks. The differences between groups in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression ratings did not reach statistical significance at any time. Side effects were distributed similarly but with a significantly higher incidence of anticholinergic effects in patients treated with amitriptyline (p < or = 0.001), whereas agitation and insomnia were registered more often in the paroxetine group. This study supports the antidepressive efficacy of paroxetine in a sample of severely depressed inpatients. The results of a double-blind trial of a tetracyclic antidepressant, maprotiline (Ludiomil) and a conventional tricyclic, amitriptyline (Elavil), in 67 ambulatory depressives are reported. Hamilton's Rating Scale for Depression was the main outcome criterion. No statistically significant differences were found between the drugs in onset of action, efficacy, side effects or predictors of response. Patients on either drug showed a significant reduction in symptoms after 1 week of treatment and at the end of the trial. Both drugs were tolerated well. A review of double-blind comparisons of maprotiline and tricyclic antidepressants, spanning 13 countries, and including over 900 patients, both ambulatory and inpatient, shows essentially similar results. The main outcome criterion in all these studies was manifest psychopathology assessed on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression by the treating physician. The absence of additional types of outcome criteria or assessment techniques, which may have detected differences in motor activity or drive as originally postulated, may have obscured results which were expected to be subtle. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the therapeutic efficacy of two antidepressants with different neurochemical mechanisms of action, amitriptyline and amineptine, was investigated in patients affected by anxious depression. Sixty-six patients with the primary diagnosis of major depression or bipolar affective disorder (DSM-III-R) and meeting additional operational clinical criteria such as anxiety, trepidation, restlessness, early and/or late insomnia, impulsivity, hostility, dysphoria, compulsivity, hyperperspiration, palpitation, pollakiuria and phobias were included. They were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 22) and treated either with placebo, amitriptyline (up to 100 mg/day) or amineptine (up to 200 mg/day) for 6 weeks. Patients showed better response to amitriptyline, a preferential inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, than to amineptine, a selective inhibitor of dopamine reuptake. The present results suggest that alterations in serotonergic rather than dopaminergic transmission contribute to the pathophysiology of anxious depression. The antidepressant efficacy and side effect profile of a fixed dose of 20 mg/day of fluoxetine, a specific serotonin reuptake inhibitor, were compared to those of amitriptyline. Fifty-eight patients with DSM-III-R depression were randomly assigned to receive either fluoxetine or amitriptyline. Fifty-six patients (fluoxetine N = 23, amitriptyline N = 23) completed the 6 week study. Comparable antidepressant efficacy was demonstrated for the two drugs. Patients taking fluoxetine reported less side-effects than those taking amitriptyline. A double-blind trial was undertaken to compare the antidepressant efficacy and the side effects of Lofepramine with those of Amitriptyline in the treatment of endogenous depression. The study involves 22 acutely ill endogenously depressive patients. 11 patients were treated with Lofepramine and the remaining 11 with Amitriptyline. The results demonstrate that both substances are effective in the treatment of depression. However, the therapeutical efficacy of Lofepramine is significantly greater than that of Amitriptyline. Furthermore, the tolerance of Lofepramine is better than that of Amitriptyline, and the side effects of Amitriptyline, especially in blood pressure dysregulation, are greater than those of Lofepramine. Paroxetine is a new antidepressant drug with potent serotonin (5HT) uptake inhibitory properties. In this double-blind comparative study, the antidepressant effect of paroxetine and amitriptyline has been compared in 44 patients with depressive illnesses of an endogenous nature. Each drug was given for 6 weeks. The 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale was used to measure the antidepressant effect. Reported events were assessed applying a 22-item check list. Non-parametric statistical analyses were applied in the evaluation of treatment outcome for the 30 patients who completed the study. The results showed no significant differences in overall antidepressant efficacy between paroxetine and amitriptyline and that paroxetine displayed significantly fewer instances of dry mouth and orthostatic dizziness than amitriptyline. No obvious relationship was demonstrated between the plasma levels of the drugs and their clinical effects. Antidepressant drugs are increasingly used in the management of chronic pain. They are mainly prescribed for cancer-related pain and central pain, e.g. phantom or stump pain, post-herpetic neuropathy. However, no controlled clinical trials have validated their in either pathology. Thus, physicians still do not know whether antidepressants are really effective and which might be best. It is still debated whether the effect of antidepressants in the management of chronic pain is limited to the amelioration of frequently concomitant depression or extends to pain itself. To verify both the analgesic effect of tricyclic antidepressants, and the possible relationship between their antidepressant effect and the relief of central pain, we carried out a randomized, within-patient (cross-over) placebo-controlled study in patients suffering from central pain. The results clearly indicate the better analgesic effect of tricyclic antidepressants over placebo (p less than 0.0001). Within the antidepressants tested, chlorimipramine, a blocker of serotonin reuptake, is significantly more effective (p less than 0.0001) than notriptyline, a blocker of noradrenaline reuptake. Finally, the antinociceptive effect is independent of the effects of the two drugs on the symptoms of depression. 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.
                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.
                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.
                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. To compare the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) with that of amitriptyline (a tricyclic antidepressant) in the treatment of depression in 191 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                A randomized, double blind, double dummy, parallel group study. A placebo washout period of 3-7 days was followed by an 8 week active treatment phase during which patients received either paroxetine (20-40 mg daily) or amitriptyline (75-150 mg daily). The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale score at endpoint.
                Paroxetine was as effective as amitriptyline for the treatment of depression, with similar improvements in RA associated pain and disability also seen in both groups. However, paroxetine was better tolerated than amitriptyline, with an overall frequency of adverse experiences of 56.4% and 67.7% in the 2 groups, respectively. The frequency of anticholinergic adverse experiences was much lower in the paroxetine treatment group (18.1% vs 43.8% taking amitriptyline) and paroxetine treated patients also experienced fewer severe (16.0% vs 21.9%), serious nonfatal (0% vs 4.2%), and drug related adverse experiences (12.8% vs 29.2%).
                Tolerability is an important consideration in this patient population, which is largely composed of elderly patients who are taking additional medications for RA. Paroxetine shows a number of advantages in the management of depression comorbid with RA. Patients (n = 150) were randomized to a 6-week, double-blind study to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, amitriptyline, and placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder symptoms. Average daily modal doses were mirtazapine, 18 mg; amitriptyline, 111 mg; and placebo, 4.6 capsules. Mirtazapine- and amitriptyline-treated patients had statistically significantly greater mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score reductions (weekly visits 1, 2, 4, and endpoint) compared to placebo. These findings were supported by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales. Somnolence and weight gain were the only adverse clinical experiences (ACEs) reported substantially more often by mirtazapine-treated patients than by those in the placebo group. However, more amitriptyline-treated patients reported decreased visual accommodation, dry mouth, dyspepsia, constipation, tachycardia, hypertension, hypotension, discoordination, dizziness, and tremor than mirtazapine- or placebo-treated patients. Results of this study indicate that mirtazapine is more effective than placebo in the treatment of these patients, and superior to amitriptyline in respect to anticholinergic and cardiovascular effects. The efficacy of fluvoxamine was compared to that of amitriptyline in a double-blind 6-week fixed-dose trial of 56 inpatients with major depressive episode. The two drugs were comparable in their antidepressant efficacy. We tested the percentage of improvement in Hamilton-D scores during the first and the second weeks of treatment as predictors of efficacy for the last week. Improvement rates during the second week significantly predicted the outcome. We also investigated whether or not some symptomatological characteristics would permit prior prediction of the outcome with amitriptyline or fluvoxamine, dividing our sample into responders and nonresponders to the two drugs. The four groups showed differences in their symptomatological profiles. In a multicenter, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, the efficacy of Limbitrol was compared with that of its components, amitriptyline and chlordiazepoxide. All patients had a diagnosis of primary depression. Data from 279 patients were evaluated using the Hamilton depression scale, the Beck depression inventory, and physician and patient global change measures. Statistically significant differences favoring Limbitrol occurred after 1 week of treatment, and a trend in favor of Limbitrol continued throughout the remaining 3 weeks. In most efficacy comparisons, the combination was as good as, or better than, amitriptyline alone. It was superior to chlordiazepoxide alone after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment. Each component produced an independent contribution to the total therapeutic effect: the chlordiazepoxide effect was more prominent in the first 2 weeks and the amitriptyline effect in the latter 2 weeks. A trend favoring amitriptyline over chlordiazepoxide was evident by week 4. The overall incidence of side effects was comparable in both Limbitrol- and amitriptyline-treated groups. Limbitrol-treated patients exhibited more sedation, but significantly fewer Limbitrol patients discontinued treatment prematurely because of side effects. Amitriptyline reduces the pain caused by peripheral-nerve disease, but treatment is often limited by side effects related to the drug's many pharmacologic actions. Selective agents might be safer and more effective.
                We carried out two randomized, double-blind, crossover studies in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy, comparing amitriptyline with the relatively selective blocker of norepinephrine reuptake desipramine in 38 patients, and comparing the selective blocker of serotonin reuptake fluoxetine with placebo in 46 patients. Fifty-seven patients were randomly assigned to a study as well as to the order of treatment, permitting comparison among all three drugs and placebo as the first treatment. The patients rated the degree of pain present each day using verbal descriptors, and they also assessed the extent of pain relief globally at the end of each treatment period.
                After individual dose titration, the mean daily doses of the drugs were as follows: amitriptyline, 105 mg; desipramine, 111 mg; and fluoxetine, 40 mg. There was moderate or greater relief of pain in 28 of the 38 patients (74 percent) who received amitriptyline, 23 of the 38 patients (61 percent) who received desipramine, 22 of the 46 patients (48 percent) who received fluoxetine, and 19 of the 46 patients (41 percent) who received placebo. The differences in responses between amitriptyline and desipramine and between fluoxetine and placebo were not statistically significant, but both amitriptyline and desipramine were superior to placebo. Amitriptyline and desipramine were as effective in patients who were not depressed as in depressed patients, but fluoxetine was effective only in depressed patients.
                Desipramine relieves pain caused by diabetic neuropathy with efficacy similar to that of amitriptyline, offering an alternative for patients unable to tolerate the latter. Blockade of norepinephrine reuptake is likely to mediate the analgesic effect of these antidepressant drugs in diabetic neuropathy. Fluoxetine, which blocks serotonin uptake, is no more effective than placebo for the relief of pain. Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor (mean dose 73 mg each morning) was compared with amitriptyline (mean dose 122 mg at night) in a double-blind study of 64 depressed out-patients. Fifty patients completed the 6-week trial. The drugs did not differ with respect to psychiatrists' ratings, but amitriptyline was slightly superior with respect to patients' ratings. The amitriptyline-treated group had complaints of dry mouth and dizziness on standing; the fluoxetine-treated group of sleep disturbances, nausea, and headaches. 1. A double-blind, multicentre study comparing the efficacy and safety of minaprine and amitriptyline in patients with major depression was carried out. Five hundred and thirty-one patients were randomly assigned to treatment with either minaprine 100 mg, 200 mg or 300 mg day-1 or with amitriptyline 150 mg day-1 (75 mg during the first week). The medication was administered for 6 weeks. 2. Efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton rating scale for depression (HDRS), the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) and visual analogue assessments of depression carried out by both the investigators and patients. Unwanted effects were assessed by a questionnaire and spontaneous reporting. In a subgroup of patients cardiovascular effects were investigated by high speed ECG and systolic time intervals. 3. Patients in each treatment group showed a significant clinical improvement (P < 0.01) from baseline. The mean HDRS and MADRS scores adjusted for baseline differences, showed significantly less improvement in the minaprine 100 mg once daily (P < 0.01) and the minaprine 300 mg daily (P < 0.01) groups than in the amitriptyline group at both week 4 and week 6. The MADRS score at week 4 suggested that 200 mg day-1 minaprine was less effective than amitriptyline (P < 0.05), but there was no difference between the two groups at week 6 on either the HDRS or the MADRS. 4. Both drugs were well tolerated and there were no significant differences between treatment groups in any of the safety and tolerance assessments. In the ECG, amitriptyline produced a significant increase in the heart rate and PR interval while minaprine had no effect on electrocardiographic measurements. Neither drug produced changes in the systolic time intervals. 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) 104 patients suffering from neurotic or reactive depression were treated with either alprazolam or amitriptyline in randomised, double-blind fashion. Seventeen patients were either lost to follow-up or withdrawn before week 2 (13 due to side effects and 1 because she was feeling better). A further 7 patients did not comply with the protocol, giving a total of 24 patients whose data were not considered suitable for inclusion in the analysis of therapeutic assessments. Evaluation of the 80 patients (40 in each group) who completed at least 2 weeks of the 4-week study demonstrate that both treatments produced a statistically significant response rate. There was a more rapid effect in those patients who received amitriptyline, but there was no significant difference in response between the treatment groups after 4 weeks treatment. Analysis of safety and side effect data on 101 patients (50 treated with alprazolam and 51 with amitriptyline) shows no statistically significant difference in the overall number of side effects experienced in each group, although 11 of those patients who received amitriptyline withdrew because of adverse reactions before completing the study compared to 6 in the alprazolam group. These results suggest that alprazolam may be a useful treatment for patients with neurotic or reactive depression not requiring hospitalisation. A new antidepressant, amoxapine, which is a dibenzoxazepine deprivative, was compared with amitriptyline in a randomised double-blind trial. Forty-eight patients were included and 41 completed a 4-week treatment. Most of the patients were maintained on 150 mg daily. Assessments were made by the Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Nurses' Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation (NOSIE), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and Patient's Self-Evaluation. The total HAM-D score was considerably reduced in the majority of the patients. Amitriptyline was the most effective with regard to symptoms included in the factor Sleep Disturbances and-secondary maybe-towards some items included in the factor Somatization. For the remaining items,including the items of the factors Anxiety/Depression and Apathy, the last score was lower in the amoxapine group than in those treated with amitriptyline. Among the unipolar cases the amoxapine treated patients were more satisfied with regard to efficacy (P = 6.3%). The frequency of side effects such as tremor and dizziness was considerably lower in the amoxapine group. In total, the side effects lasted longer in the amitriptyline group. We conclude that amoxapine seems to be an effective antidepressant with a low frequency of side effects. Up to now, the antidepressant efficacy of the extract of St. John's wort, LI 160, has been compared to imipramine and maprotiline, demonstrating similar antidepressant efficacy in mildly to moderately depressed patients, treated either with LI 160 or the respective synthetic comparator. In the study reported here, LI 160 (total daily dose: 900 mg) was compared with the sedating tricyclic amitriptyline (total daily dose: 75 mg) in a controlled, randomized, multicentre trial. At the end of the 6-week study, the major target variable, the Hamilton Depression Scale response rate, exhibited no statistically significant difference between the groups, although a tendency for a better response rate was seen in the amitriptyline group. The secondary efficacy parameters, decreases in the total Hamilton Depression and Montgomery-Asberg scores, showed a significant advantage for amitriptyline, but only at week 6. With regard to tolerability, LI 160 was clearly superior to amitriptyline, particularly in relation to anticholinergic and Central Nervous System adverse events. Thus, 37% of the LI 160 treated patients reported adverse events, compared to 64% in the amitriptyline group. This considerable superiority in tolerability for LI 160 in relation to amitriptyline, could confer an advantage in improving compliance for antidepressant pharmacotherapy. In a controlled, clinical, multicentre trial comprising a total of 43 patients (17 men and 26 women) citalopram was compared double-blindly with amitriptyline. Nineteen patients of each group were classified as endogeneously depressed, whereas four patients of the citalopram group and one of the amitriptyline group were classified as non-endogenously depressed. The patients were seriously ill with a high frequency of previous depressive episodes and of mental disorders among their closest relatives. Thirteen of the patients in either group had received antidepressants without satisfactory effect before entry into the trial. Each patient was treated for a period of at least 3 weeks with daily citalopram doses of 30-60 mg or daily amitriptyline doses of 75-225 mg. A statistically significant reduction of MADRS scores (total scores as well as each of the 10 individual items) was recorded in both groups. The only difference between the groups was a trend towards a better effect on sleep disturbances in the amitriptyline group. Side-effects were recorded more frequently in the amitriptyline group than in the citalopram group, global assessment of side effects being significantly different in favour of citalopram. It is concluded that citalopram is an effective and safe drug in the treatment of endogenous depression - probably as efficacious as amitriptyline, but with fewer side effects. To determine amitriptyline's (AMI) efficacy in the acute treatment of adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD).
                Subjects aged 12 through 17 years meeting Research Diagnostic Criteria for MDD, diagnosed with the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children (K-SADS), participated in a 2-week placebo-washout followed by an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-design, placebo-controlled trial of AMI, 5 mg/kg per day. The K-SADS nine-item scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impressions rating scale were used as outcome measures.
                Thirty-one subjects were randomized (18 AMI, 13 placebo). Twenty-two subjects were study completers (12 AMI, 10 placebo). AMI's efficacy was suggested by the Clinical Global Impressions but not the K-SADS-derived data. Perhaps the primary limitation of the current study is its small sample size.
                No definitive recommendation can be made regarding the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of adolescent MDD. A double-blind, 3-phase, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial of the pain-relieving effect of amitriptyline and carbamazepine was carried out in 15 patients with central post-stroke pain (CPSP) but without signs of depression. Treatment was given, in randomized order, for periods of 4 weeks, separated by 1 week wash-out. The final doses were 75 and 800 mg/day, respectively, for amitriptyline and carbamazepine. The treatment effects were assessed by daily ratings of pain intensity on a 10-step verbal scale and at the end of each treatment period by a global rating of the analgesic effect on a 5-step verbal scale. For the assessment of depression the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS) was used. Amitriptyline produced a statistically significant reduction of pain when compared to placebo. According to the global rating, 10 of the 15 patients were responders to this drug. The effect could already be noticed during the second treatment week and it appeared to be correlated to the plasma concentration, since the median total ami- and nortriptyline concentrations were 497 and 247 nmol/l, respectively, for responders and non-responders. The early onset, together with the fact that the patients were not depressed, nor did they obtain reduced scores on ratings of depressive symptoms and signs, provides strong support for the conclusion that the pain relief was not caused by an antidepressive effect. Five of the 14 patients treated with carbamazepine reported some pain relief, but the effect did not reach statistical significance when compared to placebo. No correlation was found between effect and plasma concentration. In general, the patients tolerated the planned final dose of amitriptyline well. No final dose reduction was necessary. Carbamazepine caused more side effects and the final dose had to be reduced in 4 patients. However, only 1 patient had to be taken off medication, on day 25, due to drug interaction. A double-blind, placebo- and amitriptyline-controlled comparison study was performed to evaluate the antidepressant efficacy of sertraline, a specific serotonin uptake inhibitor. Patients with DSM-III-defined major depression randomly received either sertraline (N = 149), amitriptyline (N = 149), or placebo (N = 150) once daily for the 8-week study period. The mean final daily medication dose for the all-patients group was 145 mg and 104 mg for the sertraline- and amitriptyline-treatment groups, respectively. As measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, both the sertraline and amitriptyline treatment groups showed a significantly greater improvement from baseline (p less than or equal to .001) than the placebo group. The sertraline group had a higher proportion of gastrointestinal complaints and male sexual dysfunction than either the amitriptyline or the placebo group. The amitriptyline group showed a higher proportion of anticholinergic and sedative side effects and dizziness compared with patients who received either sertraline or placebo. Fifty-seven neurotically depressed outpatients with sleep disturbance were randomly assigned to treatment with either imipramine pamoate or amitriptyline given in a single dose at bedtime in a double-blind study for four weeks. The results indicate that both imipramine pamoate and amitriptyline are equally effective in treating neurotic depression. The clinical lore that imipramine is more effective for retarded depression and amitriptyline for anxious, agitated depression was not supported by this study. Of special interest is the fact that the imipramine pamoate group had significantly earlier rising times, and a trend toward better quality of sleep. The side effect profiles of the two drugs were also remarkably similar in this population though more patients complained of side effects on amitriptyline than on imipramine. A group of forty patients who presented to their general practitioner with depression or somatic complaints, which were considered to be due to depression, were included in a double-blind trial of dothiepin and amitriptyline. Patient improvement as judged by the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS) and the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS) indicated that both groups significantly improved over the 6 week period. Only in one comparison, CPRS after 1 week, was there any statistical difference between the groups and in this case dothiepin produced a better response than amitriptyline (p less than 0.05). Statistical analysis of side-effects indicated that the frequency and severity of certain individual side-effects, hypotension, tiredness/sleepiness and dry mouth were significantly less with dothiepin than with amitriptyline at Week 1 (p less than 0.05). The overall incidence and severity of side-effects was also less with dothiepin at all assessments during the trial. Fluoxetine, a new serotonin uptake blocking antidepressant, was compared with amitriptyline in a double-blind study. Patients were diagnosed as having major depression, according to DSM-III criteria, when interviewed with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. There was significant improvement in patient and observer ratings of depression in both groups, with no difference between groups. Recent memory improved significantly in the fluoxetine group but not in the amitriptyline group. Numbers of patients reporting side-effects were similar but the profiles of side-effects were different, with more patients on amitriptyline reporting anticholinergic and intolerable side-effects. Monitored treatment of a depressed phase of unipolar affective disorder was conducted in 11 female patients receiving imipramine and in 12 females taking amitriptyline. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the drug and in 6 patients the drugs were switched because of the lack of response to the first used compound. In the imipramine treated group a satisfactory response after 4 weeks of management (less than 6 points on Hamilton's depression scale) was observed in 6 patients and in amitriptyline treated group in 5 patients. Patients displaying a satisfactory response to amitryptyline had significantly higher--as compared to remaining patients in the group--plasma levels of the drug after two and four weeks of treatment. Such an association was not observed in patients treated wtih imipramine. Severity of depression and motor retardation before the treatment was similar both in patients with satisfactory and with poor response to imipramine as well as to amitriptyline. However the intensity of anxiety symptoms was higher in patients exhibiting poor response to treatment with amitriptyline and imipramine as well. A double blind trial was carried out comparing the tricyclic antidepressant lofepramine with amitriptyline in the treatment of patients suffering from moderate to markedly severe depression. No difference was demonstrated between the two drugs in terms of their antidepressant effect, but patients treated with lofepramine suffered from significantly less side effects than patients treated with amitriptyline. Both groups of patients had a high drop out rate but this was less marked in the groups of patients treated with lofepramine. Background: the efficacy and tolerability of the new antidepressant mirtazapine were evaluated in a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, amitriptyline-controlled, 5 week clinical study. Method: 156 patients with a DSM-III diagnosis of major depressive episode and 21-item Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (HPRSD) score ≥ 18, were randomized to treatment with either mirtazapine 20-60 mg/day or amitriptyline 75-225 mg/day. Results: mirtazapine and amitriptyline were equally effective in reducing depressive symptoms, as assessed by the 17-item HPRSD and MADRS scales. Mirtazapine was better tolerated than amitriptyline, with fewer drop-outs due to adverse events and lower incidences of adverse events both at the beginning and at the end of the trial. Conclusion: this study shows that mirtazapine is as effective as amitriptyline in treating major depression, while at the same time better tolerated. In a 7-week prospective multicentre study, the efficacy, tolerability and safety of moclobemide were compared to those of amitriptyline and placebo in parallel groups of out-patients (n = 173) fulfilling the DSM III-R criteria for a major depressive episode. Participants were required to have a minimum baseline total score of 18 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD). After a 1-week placebo washout, patients were randomly allocated to the three treatment groups. Assessment of efficacy, as judged by the number of responders achieving a 50% reduction in HAMD score by the end of treatment, showed that both moclobemide and amitriptyline were significantly superior to placebo, but that they were not significantly different from each other. Both treatments differed significantly from placebo with respect to the Physician's Global Assessment of Efficacy ('very good' or 'good' response: moclobemide 57%, amitriptyline 60% and placebo 35%). Assessment of tolerance as judged by the spontaneous reporting of adverse events showed a significant superiority of moclobemide over amitriptyline, but there was no significant difference between moclobemide and placebo. At termination of the study, amitriptyline patients showed a significant elevation of heart rate both supine (10.8 beats/min) and standing (15.5 beats/min), as well as significant weight gain (1.7 kg), but no changes were seen in the moclobemide or placebo groups. In conclusion, both moclobemide and amitriptyline were found to be more effective than placebo in the treatment of depression, while moclobemide had fewer side effects. 1 A double-blind trial with parallel treatment groups was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of mianserin with amitriptyline. 2 This was a six week trial with weekly visits. Measurements at each visit included: 21 item Hamilton Depression (HAMD) Scale. Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scale and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS). 3 Mianserin and amitriptyline were comparable with respect to efficacy. 4 More adverse experiences were reported by amitriptyline patients. The predominant amitriptyline adverse experiences were of the anticholinergic type; the predominant mianserin adverse experience was drowsiness/fatigue. 5 The Efficacy Index (EI), a scale combining efficacy and adverse experiences, clearly demonstrated the superiority of mianserin over amitriptyline. Current treatment of migraine either abortive or prophylactic is often unsatisfactory. Prophylactic treatment of severe migraine may reduce attack frequency, and current therapy centers on beta-blockers, serotonin (5-HT) reuptake blockers and 5-HT2 receptor antagonists. The author compared the efficacy and safety of amitriptyline and fluvoxamine among migraine patients (24F, 8M vs. 23F, 9M) in a double blind study. The efficacy of amitriptyline has already been established by earlier clinical studies. The other investigated drug, fluvoxamine, has a more selective 5-HT reuptake blocking property than amitriptyline. In this study, amitriptyline significantly reduced the number of headache attacks, but it caused severe drowsiness in many migraineurs. The fluvoxamine also favorably influenced on the number of headache attacks and caused only slight side effects. These findings suggest, that fluvoxamine may be an alternative drug in migraine prophylaxis, however, further studies should be performed with more subjects. This study was designed to compare the antidepressant effects of alprazolam, a triazolobenzodiazepine, with amitriptyline hydrochloride in a group of patients with nonpsychotic, major depressions diagnosed by Research Diagnostic Criteria. A mean rapid eye movement latency of less than 65 minutes was required to enter this study. Dexamethasone suppression tests were conducted before treatment. By strictly applied Research Diagnostic Criteria, 83.6% of the subjects were endogenous, and 34.7% were inpatients. A significantly greater percentage of alprazolam-treated patients responded within the first seven days of treatment. By the end of this six-week trial, alprazolam was associated with significant reductions in Hamilton, Beck, Covi, Raskin, and Carroll Rating scores (pretreatment to posttreatment). However, by the end of treatment the effects of amitriptyline exceeded those of alprazolam on both the Hamilton and Beck scales. These data indicate that alprazolam is not as effective as amitriptyline in major depressions with a shortened rapid eye movement latency. The efficacy of continuation therapy with tricyclic antidepressants has been established in a number of controlled trials. This study investigated the efficacy of continuation therapy with a relatively new antidepressant, amoxapine, using a double-blind controlled comparison with amitriptyline. Subjects met DSM-III criteria for major depressive disorder and were randomized to treatment with either amoxapine 400 mg (N = 47) or amitriptyline 300 mg (N = 45). The acute phase lasted up to 8 weeks. Responders were continued on the same drug at the same dose for a 16-week continuation phase. Some measures found more rapid onset for amitriptyline, which is inconsistent with findings from some prior studies. Amitriptyline was more effective in inducing full recovery. There was a trend for higher relapse rates on amoxapine, perhaps related to the fact that there were more partial responders entering continuation therapy from this group. Side effect rates were equivalent in the two drugs. However, physicians rated amoxapine's side effects as more frequently interfering with its therapeutic effect. These data suggest that amoxapine does not offer any clear advantage over amitriptyline for continuation therapy in patients who have major depressive disorder. Of potential clinical relevance is the finding that achieving full recovery in the acute phase may reduce the likelihood of relapse in the continuation phase, regardless of the type of antidepressant medication prescribed. 21 depressed patients of the Basle University Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic were treated in a double-blind study with paroxetine and amitriptyline. 11 of these patients did not continue the trial until the end of the 7th week. There was a significant difference in the number of dropouts between the two groups: 80% of the amitriptyline group did not continue until the end, while in the paroxetine group we found only 30% dropouts. The patients of both groups showed a gradual decrease of the median total scores on the Hamilton and the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scales. Although the number of patients who stayed in the trial for at least 4 weeks (8 with paroxetine, 6 with amitriptyline) is quite small, we see from the results of the clinical global impression that the members of the paroxetine group improved most of all in the somatic symptoms, while considering their moods we found no differences between the groups. Patients of both groups complained about side effects, most of all about dry mouth and tiredness. From the high rate of dropouts under amitriptyline we found that the side effects under this drug were more severe and therefore led to the dropouts. In a double-blind, random-assignment, parallel-group trial, outpatients with major depression received either the new antidepressant clovoxamine, the tricyclic amitriptyline, or placebo for 6 weeks. By an "improvement" criterion of 50% or greater improvement in the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) total score, 88% of clovoxamine completers improved versus 75% with amitriptyline and 43% with placebo; however, due to small numbers, the differences failed to reach statistical significance. Diminished salivary flow was significantly greater with amitriptyline, as were complaints of dry mouth, somnolence, dizziness, and headache. Nausea and vomiting were more common in the clovoxamine-treated group. With amitriptyline, but not with clovoxamine, memory performance declined over a month. However, psychomotor performance was not affected. A double-blind study was carried out comparing the antidepressant properties of maptotiline (a new tetracyclic antidepressant) and amitriptyline. Twenty-one hospitalized severely depressed patients, selected on the basis of clinical and psychometric criteria, completed the trial period of 28 days. The new drug was found to have an order of effectiveness similar to that of amitriptyline and both drugs were effective in agitated as well as retarded forms of depression. For both, the "day of effect", intended as the timing of sharp clinical improvement, tended to occur during the second week of treatment. Both drugs were well tolerated by most patients but one of the maprotiline patients presented a generalized rash which resolved after discontinuation of the drug. In conclusion, maprotiline is seen as an interesting addition to the group of major antidepressant drugs. This paper presents the results from a large multicenter study, performed at three clinical research units in the USA. Prior to a three to seven days of placebo washout period, patients were randomly assigned to zimelidine, a potent and selective 5-HT reuptake blocker, amitriptyline or placebo. The scheduled treatment period was four weeks. Dosage range was 75-300 mg/day for active medications. The rating instruments were the Hamilton Depression Scale and the Clinical Global Impression scale. The side effects were recorded by using a side effect inventory (TESS). Vital signs, laboratory work including clinical chemistry, ECG, and plasma levels of drugs, were performed. In the main efficacy evaluation there were 229 depressed outpatients included, all having completed at least two weeks of treatment after the washout period. The patients treated with zimelidine as well as those treated with amitriptyline showed a significant improvement relative to the placebo treated patients. For the safety evaluation 263 patients were included. Side effects, in particular anticholinergic effects but also drowsiness and cardiovascular effects, were much less pronounced in the zimelidine group as compared to the amitriptyline group. Only marginal differences regarding side effects were reported for zimelidine compared to those reported for placebo. A multiclinic double-blind controlled study was performed on the effects of MAP in both inpatients and outpatients with AMT as control drug. 1. Subjects consisted of 41 male and 45 female patients suffering from various types of depression. MAP was assigned to 42 cases and AMT to 44 cases. Of these patients, 14 MAP cases and 10 AMT cases were subsequently dropped for a variety of reasons to obtain 28 MAP cases and 34 AMT cases as evaluable. 2. The global improvement ratings were compared and found not significantly different for any week between the two treatments. 3. The global improvement ratings by the characteristic features of patients did not show any significant difference in any items studied between the two treatments. 4. The symptomatic improvement ratings (on the Hamilton R.S. for assessment by the physician) indicated that AMT was more effective on "anxiety (psychic)." 5. The symptomatic improvement ratings (on the Beck self-assessment scale by the patient) indicated that MAP was more effective on "work" and AMT on "pathos", "feeling of satisfaction", "withdrawal" and "loss of libido." 6. During the treament period, 74.3 percent of the MAP group and 76.9 percent of the AMT group of patients showed some side effects of accompanying symptoms, with no significant difference recognized between the two treatments. Itemwise, however, the incidence of tremor was significantly lower (p-=0.06) in the MAP group. Moreover, the MAP group tended to be less liable to such anticholinergic side effects as dry mouth, constipation, trouble of accomodation, urinary disturbance and palpitation. 7. On the basis of the above findings, it is concluded that MAP is as effective against depression as AMT and less liable to the anticholinergic side effects. It is, therefore, a very useful antidepressant. A total of 144 outpatients in general practice in Denmark, aged 18-65 years and diagnosed as suffering from depression with a HAMD-17 score of 15 or more, were included in this 8-week double-blind, randomised, multicentre, controlled, parallel group comparison of paroxetine versus amitriptyline. The purpose of the study was primarily to evaluate efficacy and tolerance of treatment. In addition, focus was added on weight change and subjective well-being. The efficacy results showed equal effect of both drugs. However, paroxetine was tolerated better than amitriptyline, and this difference reached the level of significance when four non-evaluable patients were taken out of the analysis. Moreover, there was a significant weight increase in the amitriptyline group and no significant weight change in the paroxetine group. There was no difference between the groups as regards subjective well-being as measured by the VAS. In conclusion, paroxetine is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant, and well-suited for the treatment of depression in general practice. A total of 115 elderly patients (60-85 years of age) with DSM III diagnosis of major depressive episode were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with either mirtazapine, 15-45 mg/day, or amitriptyline, 30-90 mg/day. Efficacy was assessed biweekly, using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) as primary outcome variables. The treatment with both drugs resulted in a similar reduction of total HRDS and MADRS scores, with no statistically significant differences between treatment groups at any assessment point or at endpoint. Statistically significant differences favouring amitriptyline were present according to CGI-Global Improvement Scale at endpoint, HRDS cognitive disturbance factor at weeks 2, 4 and 6 and endpoint and retardation factor at week 6. Adverse events were reported by a similar number of patients in both treatment groups. Additional research is needed to assess further the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine among elderly depressed patients. We performed a randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of zimelidine with amitriptyline and placebo in outpatients with major depression, in particular patients with mixed anxiety/depressive symptomatology. Overall, amitriptyline was more effective than zimelidine and placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. However, when those patients with more severe depression were specifically examined, both antidepressants were equal in efficacy and superior to placebo. We also found no evidence for a greater likelihood of a zimelidine-induced peripheral neuropathy in this study. The present results suggest that zimelidine may be more effective in the treatment of severely depressed patients, rather than those with more mild mixed anxiety/depressive syndromes. To test the hypotheses that both amitriptyline and gabapentin are more effective in relieving neuropathic pain than an active placebo, diphenhydramine.
                Randomized, controlled, double blind, triple crossover 8-week trial.
                Veterans Affairs medical center.
                Community dwelling adults with spinal cord injury (N=38) were recruited by telephone, letters, and flyers.
                Eight-week trial each of amitriptyline, gabapentin, and diphenhydramine.
                Pain intensity measured with a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) and an 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale (NRS) and depressive symptomatology measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Short Form (CESD-SF).
                Baseline VAS scores for participants with low (< 10) CESD-SF scores was 4.61 and for those with high scores (> or = 10) it was 7.41. At week 8, in participants with high baseline CESD-SF scores, amitriptyline (mean, 4.21) was more effective than diphenhydramine (mean, 6.67; P=.035), and there was a nonsignificant trend suggesting that amitriptyline may be more effective than gabapentin (mean, 6.68; P=.061). Gabapentin was no more effective than diphenhydramine (P=.97). There was no significant difference among the medications for those with lower CESD-SF scores. Results could not be attributed to dropout rates, order or dose of medications, amount of medication taken for breakthrough pain, or side effects.
                Amitriptyline is more efficacious in relieving neuropathic pain than diphenhydramine at or below the level of spinal cord injury in people who have considerable depressive symptomatology. Five hundred four outpatients suffering from a major depressive episode were randomly assigned to receive either amitriptyline, doxepin, alprazolam, or placebo. The study was conducted in three treatment centers during a six-week period. All three active medications produced significantly more clinical improvement than did placebo, irrespective of the patient's initial anxiety, depression, and psychomotor retardation and irrespective of the patient's assignment to various subtypes of depression, including the DSM-III melancholia subtype. Compared with placebo, sedation was reported more frequently with all three medications, whereas anticholinergic effects were reported more frequently only for the two tricyclic antidepressants, but not for alprazolam. A double-blind trial of amitriptyline and imipramine was conducted in patients suffering from depressive illness. The results failed to confirm the prevalent belief that amitriptyline has a greater sedative effect and superior anxiolytic properties than imipramine. The therapeutic effect of these drugs was not shown to be related to their sedative properties and with regard to anxiety the reverse appeared to be true. Amitriptyline is the most common analgesic adjuvant used in cancer patients with neuropathic pain, even though no specific studies have demonstrated a benefit. A randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study was designed to evidence the effects of amitriptyline in patients with neuropathic cancer pain.
                Sixteen advanced cancer patients with neuropathic pain on systemic morphine therapy, no longer receiving oncologic treatment, presenting moderate pain (about 4 or more, but less than 7, on a numerical scale of 0-10) in the last week, and given a stable morphine dose in the last 2 days were admitted to the study. During the first week of study, patients were administered 25 mg of amitriptyline or equivalent drops of placebo at night for 3 days and 50 mg for the following 4 days. Doses for patients aged more than 65 years were 15 mg (first 3 days) and 30 mg (3 days after). After a week, a crossover took place for the second week, with the other treatment at an inverse sequence. Opioid consumption, pain intensity, symptoms and adverse effects, mood, sleep, patient's preference, quality of life before starting the study, the first week after and the second week after were recorded.
                No significant benefits in analgesia were found in the global pain intensity of the previous week of treatment, the least pain intensity or the pain evaluated just after a week of treatment, at the moment of the visit, when amitriptyline was compared with placebo. A significant difference was evidenced for the worst pain (P < 0.035). No differences in opioid doses during the period of study were found. Drowsiness, confusion and dry mouth were significantly more intense with amitriptyline than with placebo (P < 0.036, 0.003, and 0.034, respectively). There were no substantial differences between the two treatments in Spitzer's quality of life score and for each item. No differences in patients' preference for the two treatment periods were found. The analgesic effects of amitriptyline were slight and associated with adverse effects.
                In light of the results obtained in the study, the extensive use of the drug for cancer pain should be questioned. The efficacy and safety of fluoxetine, a new antidepressant agent, were assessed in a double-blind, parallel, randomized study of 44 outpatients with major depressive disorder. Following a 1-week placebo period, patients were randomly assigned to either fluoxetine or amitriptyline for a period of 5 weeks. The mean maintenance dosages were 55 mg/day for fluoxetine and 159 mg/day for amitriptyline. Both drugs were effective in relieving the symptoms of depression. The most frequently reported side effects were nausea and nervousness for fluoxetine, and dry mouth, dizziness, and drowsiness for amitriptyline. Forty-three out-patients with depression of a moderate degree were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind parallel group study comparing amitriptyline and alprazolam for 6 weeks of treatment. Patients were evaluated at the end of placebo washout and at Weeks 1, 2, 3 and 6 of drug therapy using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Drug dosage was determined in a fixed-flexible design resulting in mean final doses of alprazolam 3.2 mg/day and of amitriptyline 115 mg/day. Although both drug groups improved there were statistically significant differences in favour of amitriptyline at the end of the study on the HAM-D, BDI and HAM-A scales. Patients on amitriptyline reported more side effects overall than patients taking alprazolam with significantly more reports of dry mouth in the amitriptyline group. Paroxetine (30 mg), a selective serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitor, was compared in a double-blind trial to amitriptyline (150 mg) in a sample of 40 inpatients aged 18-65 years who fulfilled Research Diagnostic Criteria for major depression. Patients were studied after a placebo drug washout period of 10 days and after an active 4-week treatment period. Sleep EEG recordings were performed before and at the end of the study as well as during acute treatment (first 2 days) and following withdrawal of active medication. Paroxetine shows an antidepressant effect similar to amitriptyline with a different side-effect profile typical of 5-HT reuptake inhibition. Paroxetine and amitriptyline decreased the amount of REM sleep, a well-known effect of classical antidepressants. Paroxetine also shared with other 5-HT reuptake inhibitors an alerting effect on sleep that was not shown to be detrimental on subjective sleep quality. Patients with anorexia nervosa have concurrent problems of emaciation and depression. Therefore, treatment with medications affecting both weight gain and depression seemed reasonable. Seventy-two anorectic patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind study to receive cyproheptadine hydrochloride, a weight-inducing drug, amitriptyline hydrochloride, a tricyclic antidepressant, or placebo. Overall, cyproheptadine had a marginal effect on decreasing the number of days necessary to achieve a normal weight. There was a differential drug effect present in the bulimic subgroups of the anorectic patients: cyproheptadine significantly increased treatment efficiency for the nonbulimic patients and significantly impaired treatment efficiency for the bulimic patients when compared with the amitriptyline- and placebo-treated groups. The differential cyproheptadine effect on the anorectic bulimic subgroups is the first pharmacologic evidence of the validity of these subgroups. Cyproheptadine had an anti-depressant effect demonstrated by a significant decrease in the Hamilton depression ratings. Changes in appetite and weight were examined in a group of 47 carefully diagnosed primary depressives who were treated in a random design with either placebo (N = 17) or amitryptyline (N = 30) over a 35-day protocol. While the amitriptyline treated group as a whole showed a greater gain in weight than did the placebo group (4.5 vs. 0.5 lb, p less than 0.05), no differential effects could be demonstrated between drug responders and nonresponders. Likewise, while a consistent relationship between the self-report of decreased appetite and final weight change was noted in the placebo group, no simple relationship between final weight change and self-reported changes in appetite were apparent in the drug-treated patients. There was, however, a relationship between the report of decreased appetite and clinical severity of depression in the drug nonresponder subgroup despite significant weight gain during the protocol. Thus, weight change during this study period did not appear to show a simple relationship to corresponding clinical change. The clinical lore that has supported the notion that increased appetite and weight gain in patients being treated with tricyclic antidepressants are "good" signs cannot be confirmed by our findings. Forty-one depressed outpatients were treated for six weeks after random assignment to amitriptyline hydrochloride (N = 22) or nortriptyline hydrochloride (N = 19). On a mean daily dose of 119 mg, amitriptyline-treated patients had a mean tricyclic level (amitriptyline plus nortriptyline) of 120 ng/ml. Nortriptyline-treated patients on a mean dose of 117 mg/day had a mean nortriptyline level of 141 ng/ml. The two drugs were equally effective in the treatment of depression. The correlation between the Hamilton Score and the mean tricyclic level was negative in the amitriptyline-treated patients (r = -0.54, P less than .025) and positive in the nortriptyline-treated patients (r = -0.49, P less than .05). Patients treated with amitriptyline or nortriptyline with plasma levels within the therapeutic range, defined in other laboratories, had a better response, as measured by the Hamilton Score (P less than .001), Zung Score (P less than .01), and percent recovered (P less than .001), than those above or below the therapeutic range. A 6-week double-blind comparison of mianserin, a new antidepressant, and amitriptyline allowed us to explore the problem of demonstrating main effect differences in drug/drug trials when the focus is primarily only upon efficacy or upon common adverse symptomatology. Statistical analyses of standard psychiatric rating scales revealed no significant treatment differences, while both treatment groups exhibited significant parallel improvement across time. Examination of treatment emergent symptoms indicated that, while it evoked fewer anticholinergic symptoms than amitriptyline, mianserin exhibited a different profile of adverse symptomatology. The usefulness of a measure of the benefit/risk ratio was described as a means of clarifying drug/drug comparisons. A double-blind controlled trial comparing the antidepressant activity of amitriptyline with lofepramine is reported. Forty-six patients entered the 4-week trial. Analysis of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores at the beginning and end of the trial showed no significant difference between the therapeutic efficacy of lofepramine and amitriptyline. However, patients with endogenous depression responded significantly more rapidly to lofepramine as measured by Visual Analogue Scales and showed a significantly greater degree of clinical improvement after 4 weeks' treatment, as measured by Global Assessment. Adverse effects were similar in the two treatment groups. The use of rating scales in trials of depressive illnesses is discussed. The Visual Analogue Scale for depression was found to be a simple, useful and valid measure. The effectiveness of amitriptyline in relieving neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer was studied in 15 patients in a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study. The dose was escalated from 25 mg to 100 mg per day in 4 weeks. The placebo and amitriptyline phases were separated by a 2-week wash-out period. Visual analogue and verbal rating scales were used for the assessment of pain intensity and pain relief. Other measures included the number of daily activities disturbed by the pain, the Finnish McGill Pain Questionnaire, adverse effects, anxiety, depression, pressure threshold and grip strength. Amitriptyline significantly relieved neuropathic pain both in the arm and around the breast scar. Eight out of 15 patients had a more than 50% decrease in the pain intensity ('good responders') with a median dose of 50 mg of amitriptyline. The 7 patients who had a less than 50% effect had drug concentrations equaling those of the good responders. The 'poor responders' reported significantly more adverse effects with amitriptyline and placebo than the good responders. It is concluded that amitriptyline effectively reduced neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer. However, the adverse effects of amitriptyline put most of the patients off from using the drug regularly. A total of 61 moderately to severely depressed outpatients were treated for four weeks with either amoxapine (a dibenzoxapine tricyclic) or amitriptyline. This double blind study showed that amoxapine was as effective as amitriptyline and had an earlier onset of action. Maximum doses used were 300 mg of amoxapine and 150 mg of amitriptyline. Side effects were similar for the two drugs, except for impotence or loss of libido in eight male amoxapine, as against three amitriptyline patients. Laboratory, EKG, and vital signs findings showed no pathological trends. Parkinson disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disease affecting up to 1 million individuals in the United States. Depression affects up to 50% of these patients and is associated with a variety of poor outcomes for patients and their families. Despite this, there are few evidence-based data to guide clinical care.
                An NIH-funded, randomized, controlled trial of paroxetine CR, nortriptyline, and placebo in 52 patients with PD and depression. The primary outcomes were the change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the percentage of depression responders at 8 weeks.
                Nortriptyline was superior to placebo for the change in HAM-D (p < 0.002); paroxetine CR was not. There was a trend for superiority of nortriptyline over paroxetine CR at 8 weeks (p < 0.079). Response rates favored nortriptyline (p = 0.024): nortriptyline 53%, paroxetine CR 11%, placebo 24%. In planned contrasts of response rates, nortriptyline was superior to paroxetine CR (p = 0.034). Nortriptyline was also superior to placebo in many of the secondary outcomes, including sleep, anxiety, and social functioning, while paroxetine CR was not. Both active drug treatments were well tolerated.
                Though relatively modest in size, this is the largest placebo-controlled trial done to date in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and depression. Nortriptyline was efficacious in the treatment of depression and paroxetine CR was not. When compared directly, nortriptyline produced significantly more responders than did paroxetine CR. The trial suggests that depression in patients with PD is responsive to treatment and raises questions about the relative efficacy of dual reuptake inhibitors and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. In a controlled trial of amitriptyline hydrochloride in migraine prophylaxis, 100 patients received placebo for a four-week baseline period and then were randomized in double-blind fashion to therapy with amitriptyline (47 subjects) or placebo (53 subjects) for another four to eight weeks. Subjects received up to four 25-mg tablets of amitriptyline hydrochloride or identical placebo per day. Comparing the first and second four-week periods for each patient, the conditions of 55.3% of amitriptyline subjects as opposed to 34.0% of placebo subjects were greater than or equal to 50% improved and the difference between amitriptyline and placebo response rates was significant (P less than .05). Nondepressed subjects with severe migraine and depressed subjects with less severe migraine responded best to amitriptyline, whereas depressed subjects with severe migraine had little headache relief. Amitritryline is an effective antimigraine agent and the antimigraine effect seems relatively independent of antidepressant activity. Amitriptyline (AT) relieves some patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Many patients suffer side effects and better therapies are necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of maprotiline (MT) (noradrenergic) compared to AT (mixed noradrenergic and serotonergic) in this disorder. Thirty-five patients entered a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial of these two agents. We found that MT relieved PHN in many patients but was not as effective as AT. Side effects were troublesome with both agents. Relief of steady pain, brief pain and pain on tactile stimulation occurred. Four groups of responses were identified. Some patients reported relief with both agents, some with neither agent and others with only one of the drugs. Most patients were not depressed and analgesia was observed to occur without change in depression ratings in most patients who responded. This result provides evidence that in some patients AT may act via a selective noradrenergic mechanism in relieving PHN and that individuals may differ in the balance and type of neurotransmitters inhibiting pain. Selective noradrenergic agents may be effective if AT fails. OBJECTIVE (BACKGROUND): Amitriptyline (AT) is a standard therapy for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Our hypothesis was that nortriptyline (NT), a noradrenergic metabolite of AT, may be more effective.
                A randomized, double-blind, crossover trial of AT versus NT was conducted in 33 patients.
                Thirty-one patients completed the trial. Twenty-one of 31 (67.7%) had at least a good response to AT or NT, or both. We found no difference with regard to relief of steady, brief, or skin pain by visual analog scales for pain and pain relief; mood; disability; satisfaction; or preference between the two drugs. Intolerable side effects were more common with AT. Most patients (26/33) were not depressed, and most responding showed no change in rating scales for depression despite the occurrence of pain relief.
                We concluded that this study provides a scientific basis for an analgesic action of NT in PHN because pain relief occurred without an antidepressant effect, and that although there were fewer side effects with NT, AT and NT appear to have a similar analgesic action for most individuals. The authors compared the nontricyclic antidepressant trazodone with amitriptyline and placebo in a double-blind study of 202 unipolar depressed outpatients. Trazodone's clinical efficacy was similar to that of amitriptyline, with both active drugs producing significantly more clinical improvement than placebo. The incidence of anticholinergic side effects was lower for the patients taking trazodone than for those taking amitriptyline. Clomipramine is the most potent 5-HT reuptake blockade agent among the antidepressants. A comparison between the effect of clomipramine and a less powerful 5-HT reuptake blockade agent (amitriptyline) could test the hypothesis that brain 5-HT is a mediator of pain sensation. Groups of patients of either sex, with pain indication of trigeminal neuralgia, tension headache or postherpatic neuralgia, received doses of clomipramine or amitriptyline in a single blind clinical experiment. The results after three months of treatment showed that clomipramine: (1) was better than amitriptyline in treating trigeminal neuralgia; (2) tended to be better in the treatment of tension headache; and (3) amitriptyline is better in treating postherpatic neuralgia. Clomipramine was better tolerated. The results support the hypothesis that in certain pain situations, clomipramine exerts a beneficial effect, not only because of its effect on the depression and anxiety level of the patient, but also via its effects on the 5-HT brain system. A total of 101 patients entered a double-blind, parallel-group study in general practice, comparing the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. All patients received placebo for 1 week followed by active therapy for a total of 6 weeks. Medication was randomly allocated, two-thirds of the patients took paroxetine (20 mg daily) and one-third received amitriptyline (50 mg daily); this dose was increased to 30 mg and 100 mg, respectively, after 1 week. Of the patients who entered the placebo run-in, 90 took active treatment and were evaluable on an intention-to-treat basis (56 paroxetine, 32 amitriptyline). The mean age of the patients was 72 years. Significant reductions in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) from baseline to the end of treatment were seen for both groups (p < 0.01), with no difference between treatments. The HAMD score was reduced by half, or more, for 76% of patients taking paroxetine and 86% taking amitriptyline. Significant improvement was observed in the investigators' Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score for 57% of patients taking paroxetine and 52% on amitriptyline. Improvements after treatment were also observed in the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) scores. Significantly fewer patients taking paroxetine reported adverse events (34% vs 63% taking amitriptyline, p = 0.02). Those taking paroxetine experienced significantly fewer anticholinergic side effects (7% vs 25% taking amitriptyline, p = 0.04). Overall, this study confirmed the effectiveness of paroxetine as an antidepressant drug.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) A double blind controlled trial involving 37 inpatients whose depression was judged clinically to require antidepressant medication revealed that amoxapine and amitriptyline was approximately equal in efficacy. In average daily doses of 139.7 mg and 123 mg respectively, there seemed little difference in speed of action, or in the frequency of side effects, though amoxapine had less central nervous system stimulating consequences (tremors and restlessness) than did amitriptyline. Although common in clinical settings, major depressive disorder with associated anxious symptoms ('anxious depression') has not been well studied in antidepressant clinical trials. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in this group of patients. After a single-blind placebo run-in period of 2 weeks, patients were treated on a double-blind basis with fluoxetine or amitriptyline for 8 weeks. Assessment instruments included: 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, Clinical Global Impressions, Raskin Depression Scale and Covi Anxiety Scale. A total of 157 patients were randomized to either fluoxetine or amitriptyline. Fluoxetine was given at a fixed dose of 20 mg/day and amitriptyline was given in a range of 50-250 mg/day (mean of 138.1 mg/day). Fluoxetine was comparable to amitriptyline in all efficacy measures except the HAMD sleep factor. Unwanted effects were more frequent and more severe in the amitriptyline-treated patients. Fluoxetine was comparably efficacious to amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression with associated anxiety. Since fluoxetine was far better tolerated, it is a promising alternative for this frequent and disabling condition. In a 6-week double-blind parallel treatment study, dothiepin and amitriptyline were compared to placebo in the treatment of 33 depressed outpatients. Dothiepin and amitriptyline were equally effective in alleviating the symptoms of depressive illness, and both were significantly superior to placebo. The overall incidence of side effects and the frequency and severity of blurred vision, dry mouth, and drowsiness were significantly less with dothiepin than with amitriptyline. Dothiepin also produced fewer CNS and cardiovascular effects. There were no clinically important changes in laboratory parameters. Dothiepin thus was found to be an effective antidepressant drug associated with fewer side effects than amitriptyline in the treatment of depressed outpatients. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin and amitriptyline monotherapy in painful diabetic neuropathy. This was a 12-week, open-label, prospective, randomized trial. Twenty-five type-II diabetic patients with pain attributed to diabetic neuropathy and a minimum score of 2 on a pain intensity scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 4 (excruciating pain) were randomized to receive either gabapentin, titrated from 1,200 mg/day to a maximum of 2,400 mg/day, or amitriptyline, titrated from 30 mg/day to a maximum of 90 mg/day. Both drugs were titrated over a 4-week period and maintained at the maximum tolerated dose for 8 weeks. The main outcome measures were weekly pain intensity and paresthesia intensity, measured on two categorical scales. Thirteen patients received gabapentin and 12 received amitriptyline. All 25 patients completed the trial. Gabapentin produced greater pain reductions than amitriptyline (mean final scores were 1.9 vs. 1.3 points below baseline scores; P = 0.026). Decreases in paresthesia scores also were in favor of gabapentin (1.8 vs. 0.9 points; P = 0. 004). Adverse events were more frequent in the amitriptyline group than in the gabapentin group: they were reported by 11/12 (92%) and 4/13 (31%) of patients, respectively (P = 0.003). Side effects were the main limiting factor preventing dose escalation. Gabapentin produced greater improvements than amitriptyline in pain and paresthesia associated with diabetic neuropathy. Additionally, gabapentin was better tolerated than amitriptyline. Further controlled trials are needed to confirm these preliminary results. The aim of this multicenter study was to compare trazodone (TRA) with two reference drugs, amitriptyline (AMI) and mianserin (MIA), under double-blind conditions, in an elderly population, to ascertain age-related patterns for efficacy and tolerability. One hundred six elderly depressed inpatients, ranging in age from 60 to 83 years, diagnosed as having major depression according to DSM-III, were treated with 75 mg AMI (37 patients), 60 mg MIA (33 patients) or 150 mg TRA (36 patients) p.o.t.i.d. for 5 weeks. There were no differences in the clinical outcome among the three groups of patients at the end of the trial, with a significant amelioration (p less than 0.01) for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRS-D) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). TRA showed a lower overall prevalence of side effects than AMI or MIA, particularly for anticholinergic (p = 0.03 vs. AMI) and cardiovascular (p = 0.05 vs. MIA) effects. For these data GDS seems to be most reliable in detecting changes in elderly depressive symptomatology; moreover a comparable therapeutic response (among the three drugs) but a better tolerance for atypical antidepressants, particularly TRA, make advisable the use of the latter drug in the elderly population. The results of double-blind comparative trials carried out simultaneously in three Finnish hospitals are presented. The antidepressant activity and side-effects of mianserine (ORG GB 94) and amitriptyline were compared. No statistically significant differences were found between the two treatments. It was found, however, that mianserine had clearly less anticholinergic side-effects than amitriptyline. Two hundred and fifty patients participated in a 6-month, double-blind study to evaluate safety and efficacy of a medium-term treatment with amisulpride 50 mg/day versus amitriptyline 25-75 mg/day in dysthymia. Patients in treatment groups (165 amisulpride; 85 amitriptyline) were well balanced for demographic and baseline characteristics. A total of 139 patients (93 amisulpride, 46 amitriptyline) completed the study with no statistically significant differences in reasons for premature termination between the two groups. A tendency towards a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events with amitriptyline was observed (73% versus 64% amisulpride). In the amitriptyline group, a statistically significantly higher incidence of central nervous system (41% versus 24%, p=0.004) and autonomic nervous system disorders (45% versus 16%, p < 0.0001) was reported. Conversely, endocrine disorders were more frequent with amisulpride (18% versus 7%, p=0.023). Efficacy was a secondary end-point. Results of the symptom rating scales indicate that both drugs were equally effective: 60% and 62% of patients under amisulpride and amitriptyline, respectively, achieved a reduction > or = 50% of the Montgomery and Asberg Rating Scale total score at end-point. On the item 'global improvement' of the Clinical Global Impression, 67% of amisulpride and 68% of amitriptyline patients were rated as 'very much' or 'much' improved. Results of the present study in a large patient population further confirm the safe use of amisulpride in dysthymia and support its administration upon a medium-term treatment period. In a double-blind clinical trial with 20 patients suffering from endogenous depression statistically significant changes (improvement) were present in the scores of all assessment instruments. Although no statistically significant differences occurred between the groups, significant improvement on the HAM-D occurred earlier for amitriptyline and significant improvement occurred earlier on HAM-A for viloxazine. 2 patients were discontinued due to adverse reactions; one for nausea and vomiting while receiving viloxazine and one for paroxysmal atrial tachycardia while receiving amitriptyline. The same number of TES occurred for each group with seven unique to viloxazine (numbness, tingling, palpitation, ejaculation difficulty, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, epigastric pain and gustatory disturbances) and seven unique to amitriptyline (insomnia, irritability, syncope, tremor, nasal congestion, orthostatic hypertension and paroxysmal atrial tachycardia). Other than for 1 patient who developed syncope and orthostatic hypotension and the patient who developed paroxysmal atrial tachycardia, there were no clinically significant changes in pulse rate, blood pressure and weight. There were no clinical laboratory findings with either drug that were judged to be pathological. There are no prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized pharmacologic trials for the treatment of pain-predominant functional gastrointestinal disorders in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of amitriptyline in children with pain-predominant functional gastrointestinal disorders.
                In this multicenter placebo-controlled trial, children with irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia were randomized to 4 weeks of placebo or amitriptyline (10 mg/d, weight <35 kg; 20 mg/d, weight >35 kg). Assessment of gastrointestinal symptoms, psychological traits, and daily activities occurred before and after intervention. Pain was assessed daily with self-report diaries. The primary outcome was overall response to treatment (child's assessment of pain relief and sense of improvement). Secondary outcomes were effect on psychosocial traits and daily functioning.
                Ninety children were enrolled, and 83 completed the study (placebo, 40 children [30 girls]; drug, 43 children [35 girls]). A total of 63% of patients reported feeling better and 5% feeling worse in the amitriptyline arm compared with 57.5% feeling better and 2.5% feeling worse in the placebo arm (P = .63). Pain relief was excellent in 7% and good in 38% of children receiving placebo compared with excellent in 15% and good in 35% of children treated with amitriptyline (P = .85). Logistic regression analysis of those reporting excellent or good response versus fair, poor, or failed response showed no difference between amitriptyline and placebo (P = .83). Children who had more severe pain at baseline in both groups (P = .0065) had worse outcome. Amitriptyline reduced anxiety scores (P < .0001).
                Both amitriptyline and placebo were associated with excellent therapeutic response. There was no significant difference between amitriptyline and placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. Patients with mild to moderate intensity of pain responded better to treatment. The increasing cost of pharmaceuticals in the Czech Republic has led to the restriction on prescriptions of expensive new antidepressants. The aim of the study was to compare the costs and outcomes of using amitriptyline, citalopram and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression.
                Ninety patients (69 women) with a mean age of 44.5 years (S.D. = 14.3) suffering from major depression were treated with amitriptyline (N = 31), citalopram (N = 29) and fluoxetine (N = 30). Direct medical costs and effectiveness (indicated by the number of hospitalization-free days) were assessed in a prospective, open, intent-to-treat study.
                Neither cost nor effectiveness were significantly different among the treatment groups.
                Amitriptyline treatment is not less expensive nor more effective than citalopram or fluoxetine therapies. There is no advantage in restricting patients from treatment with SSRIs, which have fewer adverse effects and a decreased risk of a lethal overdosage in comparison with tricyclic antidepressants. Anti-depressants have been reported to be useful in the management of the Irritable Bowel syndrome. We studied the efficacy of amitriptyline for 12 weeks in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Forty patients who met predefined criteria entered the trial. They received 25 mg amitriptyline for the first week, 50 mg for the second week and 75 mg nightly thereafter until the end of the 12th week. The drug and placebo groups were comparable in all major pretreatment variables. Amitriptyline was found to be significantly more effective than placebo in producing global improvement, increasing feelings of well-being, reducing abdominal pain and increasing satisfaction with bowel movements. Younger age and increasing extroversion predicted a better response to amitriptyline. Severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms and other personality variables did not influence outcome. A detailed analysis of the results of a multi-centre clinical trial shows that, while the relapse rate following recovery from an operationally defined depressive illness was smaller among patients subsequently treated with either amitryptiline or lithium than with a placebo, there was no clinically significant difference between the prophylactic efficacy of the 2 antidepressants. An account is given of the relative adverse effects of the treatments, and the implications of the findings are discussed. Depressed patients seen in a private psychiatric practice (N = 41) were randomly assigned to receive trimipramine or amitriptyline over a study period of at least 4 weeks. Patients in both groups showed significant improvement over time on measures of mood and depression, and on psychological scales. Only one variable, the global improvement rating, showed a significant overall between-groups difference, which favored amitriptyline treatment. This difference may reflect the presence of significantly less baseline symptomatology in the amitriptyline group. Trimipramine patients were more seriously ill on initial diagnosis and showed significantly more improvement at week 2 than amitriptyline patients and a trend toward fewer side effects. Thus, trimipramine may be useful for patients particularly sensitive to side effects in whom evidence of early response is important. 34 patients who met the research diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder as defined by Spitzer et al. [Archs gen. Psychiat. 35: 773-782, 1978] completed a double-blind 6-week trial of mianserin versus amitriptyline following 1 week of single-blind placebo washout. After 2 weeks of dose build-up, patients took 150 mg/day of mianserin or 300 mg/day of amitriptyline throughout the next 4 weeks. At week 6, 63% of mianserin patients and 73% of amitriptyline patients were rated as responders; this difference is not statistically significant. No clinically meaningful differences between drugs were observed with respect to number or severity of side effects as reported by either patient or physician. Overall, mianserin was found to be equivalent to amitriptyline in terms of efficacy, patient tolerance and ease of administration. 3-Cyano-imipramine (cianopramine) is a potent and selective inhibitor of serotonin uptake into synaptosomes. In a double-blind trial, 60 patients with various types of depression fulfilling the DSM-III criteria of depressive episodes were treated with either cianopramine (n = 20, mean daily dose 3.3 +/- 0.6 mg) amitriptyline (n = 20, mean daily dose 86.4 +/- 21 mg) or placebo (n = 20) orally. According to the ratings of the Hamilton Scale of Depression and clinical global evaluations, both active drugs showed statistical superiority over placebo (P less than 0.02). The frequencies of anticholinergic side effects in the cianopramine group were comparable to those of the placebo group and were less than in the amitriptyline group. The findings suggest that cianopramine is a promising new antidepressant. To compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo in the treatment of fibromyalgia, and to identify predictors of response to amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine.
                Two hundred eight patients who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia were entered into a 6-month prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial and were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, or placebo.
                After 1 month, 21%, 12%, and 0% of the amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo patients, respectively, had significant clinical improvement (amitriptyline versus placebo P = 0.002, cyclobenzaprine versus placebo P = 0.02, amitriptyline versus cyclobenzaprine P not significant). These percentages increased to 36%, 33%, and 19%, respectively, at the 6-month assessment (P not significant). The nature and frequency of side effects reported by patients treated with amitriptyline and those reported by patients treated with cyclobenzaprine were similar. A normal Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) profile at baseline was predictive of clinical improvement at the 1-month evaluation (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.2-9.0). However, neither the MMPI profile nor any of the demographic, clinical, or functional parameters evaluated at baseline predicted long-term response.
                Our data confirm the short-term efficacy of amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine in a small percentage of patients with fibromyalgia. Long-term efficacy could not be demonstrated because of a higher-than-expected placebo response. Predictors of response to these drugs could not be determined. Adinazolam, a triazolobenzodiazepine, was compared with amitriptyline and placebo in a double-blind protocol involving melancholic depressives. Forty-eight patients entered the study, and 35 completed 6 weeks of evaluation. Patients were well matched in each of the groups. Initially, the adinazolam group showed more improvement than the placebo group, but this trend did not persist beyond day 7. The amitriptyline group tended to show more improvement than either the placebo or adinazolam groups, and final scores were significantly better for amitriptyline. Depressive symptoms in the amitriptyline dropout group appeared improved, whereas in the adinazolam and placebo dropout groups they were unchanged or worse. Both amitriptyline and adinazolam were more frequently associated with complaints of side effects than placebo. Thus, amitriptyline was observed to be superior to adinazolam and placebo in improvement in depressive symptoms while adinazolam had only a brief early advantage over placebo. This double-blind investigation compared onset of action, efficacy, and safety of amoxapine and amitriptyline in 46 endogenously depressed outpatients. Statistical analysis demonstrated relatively few significant differences in improvement between the two groups. Most of the differences favored amoxapine, however, and on all measures there were clear trends favoring amoxapine for more rapid onset of action or greater overall efficacy or both. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of fluvoxamine (FL) and amitriptyline (AM) in the treatment of patients hospitalized for moderate and severe depression and to evaluate the spectrum of antidepressive activity in FL. The study was open, randomized and comparative. Sixty patients (mean age 41 +/- 2.9 years) diagnosed as having recurrent depressive disorder, a moderate or severe depressive episode (ICD-10 F33.1, F33.2) were divided into two equal groups treated with FL or AM. The efficacies of FL and AM were comparable, with AM exhibiting an earlier clinical effect and FL having a better tolerance. FL was defined as an antidepressant with the predominantly sedative effect comparable to that of AM, but being better tolerated. To conduct the first randomized study comparing the efficacy of an antidepressant alone versus an antidepressant plus a neuroleptic in the treatment of late-life psychotic depression.
                The efficacy of nortriptyline plus placebo versus nortriptyline plus perphenazine was compared in 36 patients aged 50 years or older presenting with a major depressive episode with psychotic features (DSM-III-R criteria). Patients were started openly on nortriptyline treatment titrated to therapeutic levels. They were then randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to addition of perphenazine or placebo. Outcomes were compared in the 2 treatment groups using measures including the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS); side effects were assessed with the Geriatric Movement Disorder Assessment.
                Both treatments were well tolerated. Of the 36 randomly assigned patients, 2 (1 in each group) dropped out due to treatment-related adverse effects. Four additional patients dropped out for administrative reasons. Thirty patients received nortriptyline for at least 4 weeks combined with either perphenazine (N = 14) or placebo (N = 16) for at least 2 weeks (median = 9 weeks). There was no significant difference between the completers in the 2 treatment groups when comparing their scores on the HAM-D, the BPRS, its psychoticism subscale, or any side effects measure. Rates of response (defined as resolution of both depression and psychosis) did not differ significantly in the 2 groups (nortriptyline-plus-perphenazine group, 50% vs. nortriptyline-plus-placebo group, 44%).
                When treating older patients with psychotic depression, the addition of a moderate dose of a traditional neuroleptic to a tricyclic antidepressant was well tolerated but did not improve efficacy. This finding supports existing data suggesting that the pathophysiology (and thus the required treatment) of psychotic depression may be different early and late in life. Patients suffering from mixed anxiety/depressive states referred to a psychiatric out-patient clinic completed a four course of either a once-daily table of 30 mg nortriptyline with 1-5 mag fluphenazine, or a sustained release capsule of 50 mg amitriptyline once daily, on a double-blind basis. Depression improved satisfactorily on either treatment, but there was a greater reduction of anxiety on fluphenazine/nortriptyline, Drowsiness, however, occurred more frequently among the patients on amitriptyline, suggesting the sedative properties of this drug did not substitute adequately for a specific anxiolytic effect. Dry mouth was also noticeably more frequent with amitriptyline. As might be expected on pharmacokinetic and phsyological grounds, the results suggest that the sustained release characteristics of the amitriptyline preparation lead to a maximization of side-effects during the day without conferring any therapeutic advantage.
This present systematic review indicates that amitriptyline is at least as efficacious as other tricyclics or newer compounds. However, the burden of side-effects in patients receiving it was greater. In comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors amitriptyline was less well tolerated, and although counterbalanced by a higher proportion of responders, the difference was not statistically significant.