Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline and amitriptyline in hospitalized patients with major depression. Faster onset of antidepressant effects of citalopram compared with sertraline in drug-naïve first-episode major depressive disorder in a Chinese population: a 6-week double-blind, randomized comparative study. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the effects of sertraline versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression. Effect of sertraline on the recovery rate of cardiac autonomic function in depressed patients after acute myocardial infarction. Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline versus amitriptyline in outpatients with major depression. A randomized, double-blind, active-control study of sertraline versus venlafaxine XR in major depressive disorder. Placebo-controlled comparison of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and sertraline. Sertraline versus fluvoxamine in the treatment of elderly patients with major depression: a double-blind, randomized trial. Double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of sertraline versus fluoxetine in major depression. A double-blind comparison of sertraline and fluoxetine in depressed elderly outpatients. Effectiveness and acceptability of sertraline and citalopram in major depressive disorder: pragmatic randomized open-label comparison. Randomized trial of sertraline versus venlafaxine XR in major depression: efficacy and discontinuation symptoms. Double-blind placebo-controlled pilot study of sertraline in military veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Multicenter, double-blind comparison of sertraline and placebo in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. A double-blind multicenter trial comparing sertraline and fluoxetine in outpatients with major depression. A randomized trial of sertraline as a cessation aid for smokers with a history of major depression. A double-blind multicenter trial comparing sertraline and citalopram in patients with major depression treated in general practice. Preventing depression after stroke: Results from a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Antidepressant efficacy of sertraline: a double-blind, placebo- and amitriptyline-controlled, multicenter comparison study in outpatients with major depression. A double-blind comparison of sertraline and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depressive episode in outpatients. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sertraline for depressive symptoms in patients with stable, chronic schizophrenia. Sertraline is more effective than imipramine in the treatment of non-melancholic depression: results from a multicentre, randomized study. Double-blind comparison of sertraline and placebo in stroke patients with minor depression and less severe major depression. Probing the safety of medications in the frail elderly: evidence from a randomized clinical trial of sertraline and venlafaxine in depressed nursing home residents. A placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant efficacy and effects on sexual functioning of sustained-release bupropion and sertraline. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of sertraline (Zoloft) for the treatment of hot flashes in women with early stage breast cancer taking tamoxifen. Efficacy and response time to sertraline versus fluoxetine in the treatment of unipolar major depressive disorder. Placebo-controlled trial of sertraline in the treatment of children with generalized anxiety disorder. Efficacy and safety of sertraline treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized controlled trial. The Norwegian naturalistic treatment study of depression in general practice (NORDEP)-I: randomised double blind study. Randomized, double-blind comparison of venlafaxine and sertraline in outpatients with major depressive disorder. Venlafaxine 631 Study Group. Sertraline treatment of major depression in patients with acute MI or unstable angina. Comparison of sertraline and nortriptyline in the treatment of major depressive disorder in late life. Antidepressant efficacy and safety of low-dose sertraline and standard-dose imipramine for the treatment of depression in older adults: results from a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. [Efficacy and acceptability of tianeptine and sertraline in the acute treatment phase of depression]. Double-blind, multicenter comparison of sertraline and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of sertraline in the prevention of depression in stroke patients. Sertraline versus paroxetine in major depression: clinical outcome after six months of continuous therapy. Escitalopram Versus Citalopram and Sertraline: A Double-Blind Controlled, Multi-centric Trial in Indian Patients with Unipolar Major Depression. A placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sertraline and imipramine for the treatment of dysthymia. Older community residents with depression: long-term treatment with sertraline. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Comparative efficacy of sertraline vs. fluoxetine in patients age 70 or over with major depression. Escitalopram versus sertraline in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a randomized clinical trial.
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. Several previous studies, including a meta-analysis, reported no significant differences between various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of major depressive disorder. However, because of the different chemical structure of SSRIs and the difference in the frequency of serotonin transporter polymorphisms between ethnic groups, a head-to-head comparative study between SSRIs in different populations may be enlightening. We compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of citalopram and sertraline in a double-blinded randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population of drug-naïve patients with first-episode major depressive disorder. Fifty-one patients were randomly assigned to citalopram or sertraline treatment. The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used as the primary outcome. Efficacy and adverse effects were analyzed in an intent-to-treat population. Efficacy was analyzed using a last-observation-carried-forward method for early terminators. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics at baseline. No significant differences were found in MADRS scores between citalopram and sertraline at baseline (36.6 ± 5.5 vs 38.2 ± 4.9; P = 0.322) or at the end of treatment (week 6; 10.8 ± 10.0 vs 16.7 ± 11.3; P = 0.082). However, MADRS scores in the citalopram group were significantly lower at week 1 (25.2 ± 8.5 vs 30.4 ± 6.1; P = 0.029) and week 3 (15.9 ± 10.0 vs 22.1 ± 8.7; P = 0.037). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse effects were reported by 14.3% and 28.6% of patients in the citalopram and sertraline groups, respectively. In conclusion, citalopram and sertraline were both efficacious and well tolerated. However, citalopram exhibited a significantly faster onset than sertraline during the early weeks of treatment and tended to have a better efficacy in overall treatment, although the statistic was not significant. 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. Brain serotonin is known to possess sympathoinhibitory properties. The aim of this clinical physiologic study was to determine whether sertraline, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, facilitates the rate of recovery of cardiac autonomic function after an acute myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with depression.
                Thirty-eight post-MI depressed patients were randomized to receive either sertraline 50 mg per day or placebo for 6 months. Depression was defined as a score >15 on the standardized Inventory to Diagnose Depression questionnaire taken at prehospital discharge and again within 2 weeks of the acute infarct. Eleven stable post-MI nondepressed patients served as a nonrandomized reference group during follow-up. Twenty-seven patients completed the randomization. All 3 groups were followed up closely in a multidisciplinary post-MI clinic where they underwent serial testing for both time and frequency domain heart rate variability (HRV) indices at baseline (1-2 weeks after MI) and at 6, 10, 14, 18, and 22 weeks. The rate of recovery of HRV was determined by use of a growth curve model based on repeated-measures analysis of variance. There was a linear rate of increase in the SD of 24-hour N-N intervals (SDNN) in the sertraline-treated group that paralleled that of the nondepressed reference group. This contrasted with a modest but significant decline in SDNN in the placebo group from 2 to 22 weeks (t = 2.10, P <.05). However, the short-term power spectral indices, while trending toward a more rapid rate of recovery in the treated group, did not reach statistical significance compared with the placebo group.
                In depressed patients who have survived the acute phase of an MI sertraline facilitates the rate of recovery of SDNN, a recognized predictor of clinical outcome. 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. Sertraline may produce dual neurotransmitter effects similar to the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); however, it has been tested against an SNRI in only 1 previous study, and never at an optimal dose. The objective of the current multisite study was to compare relatively higher doses of sertraline (i.e., 150 mg/day) and venlafaxine extended release (XR) (225 mg/day) in outpatients with major depressive disorder.
                Subjects with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with sertraline (N = 82) or venlafaxine XR (N = 78). The study ran from January 2002 through January 2003. The primary outcome measure was the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire; secondary outcome variables included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.
                Both treatments led to significant improvement in depressive symptoms and quality-of-life measures. No significant differences were noted between treatment groups for final scores on the primary or secondary measures. The treatment groups did not differ significantly in the percentage of responders (sertraline = 55%, venlafaxine XR = 65%; intent-to-treat [ITT] sample) or remitters (sertra-line = 38%, venlafaxine XR = 49%; ITT sample), although the proportions are similar to those found in earlier selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) vs. venlafaxine meta-analyses. In patients who achieved the maximum dose of drug and maintained it for 3 weeks, response rates were similar to those found at lower doses (sertraline = 59%, venlafaxine XR = 70%); however, remission rates for this sample were comparable for both drug groups (sertraline = 48%, venlafaxine XR = 50%).
                The efficacies of sertraline and venlafaxine XR were comparable. Although response and remission rates did not differ statistically, the rates were analogous to those reported in previous meta-analyses. However, at clinically relevant higher doses, the remission rates were very similar.
                ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00179283. Previous comparative studies of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have rarely included a placebo control group and have rarely demonstrated significant between-group differences. The study reported on here was a placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant effects of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline.
                Three hundred twenty-three patients with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder were randomized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with citalopram (20-60 mg/day), sertraline (50-150 mg/day), or a placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and the primary statistical analysis was an analysis of variance comparing the change from baseline to the last observation carried forward in each treatment group.
                Both citalopram and sertraline produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the HAMD, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Significant improvement was observed at earlier timepoints in the citalopram group than the sertraline group; however, sertraline treatment was associated with increased gastrointestinal side effects and a tendency toward early discontinuation, and analyses that excluded early dropouts revealed similar acute efficacy for the two active treatments. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale demonstrated a significant anxiolytic effect of citalopram, but not sertraline, relative to placebo.
                This study confirms the antidepressant efficacy of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline. It is hypothesized that the more consistent evidence of antidepressant activity that was observed early in treatment in the citalopram group was related to more pronounced antianxiety effects and better tolerability upon initiation of therapy. Major depression is a common psychiatric disorder in the elderly population. The efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants is well established, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors appear to have a similar effectiveness along with advantages in terms of tolerability and safety. Given the lack of literature data regarding fluvoxamine in the treatment of depressed elderly patients, the aim of the present study was to compare its efficacy and tolerability with those of sertraline in a sample of elderly patients.
                Under double-blind conditions, 93 hospitalized patients older than 59 years, who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria for a major depressive episode, were randomly assigned to receive sertraline (150 mg daily) or fluvoxamine (200 mg daily) for 7 weeks. The clinical response was defined as a reduction on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score to 8 or below.
                At study completion, the response rates were 55.6% (25/45) and 71.8% (28/39) for sertraline and fluvoxamine, respectively. No significant difference in final response rates was found between the 2 treatment groups (P = 0.12). A repeated-measures analysis of variance on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores revealed a significantly different decrease of depressive symptoms between the 2 treatment groups, favoring fluvoxamine (P = 0.007). The overall safety profile of sertraline and fluvoxamine was favorable with no differences between the 2 drugs.
                The results of this double-blind trial show that sertraline and fluvoxamine may be effective compounds in the treatment of elderly depression with the latter showing some advantage in terms of speed of response. These findings warrant further replication in placebo-controlled studies. An eight-week double-blind, multicentre study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sertraline vs. fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression (DSM-III-R). There were 108 out-patients, from nine Italian centres, entered into the study, of whom 88 were evaluable (48 sertraline, 40 fluoxetine). The final mean daily dose of sertraline was 72 mg and for fluoxetine it was 28 mg. Both treatment groups showed a statistically significant improvement from baseline at one week, and this was maintained until the end of treatment for all of the following measures: Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety, the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions Scale, Zung Self-Rating Scale for Anxiety and the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire. Although there was a numerical advantage for sertraline on several efficacy measures, there was no statistically significant difference found between the treatment groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar for both treatments; 40.4% for sertraline and 39.3% for fluoxetine. However, adverse events were generally rated by patients as of lower severity in the sertraline group. In addition, for the fluoxetine group, there was a higher incidence of agitation, anxiety and insomnia than for sertraline. Sertraline was considered to be better tolerated than fluoxetine overall, since only 9.6% of sertraline-treated patients discontinued treatment due to therapy failure whereas in the fluoxetine-treated group this figure was 19.6%. By contrast, 13.5% of sertraline-treated patients discontinued prematurely because of clinical improvement, compared with 10.7% of fluoxetine-treated patients. There has been a paucity of well-designed studies comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medications in the treatment of depression in the elderly. This multicenter study was designed to examine the efficacy and safety of sertraline and fluoxetine in depressed elderly outpatients. A secondary objective was to examine the effects of SSRI treatment on quality of life and cognitive function.
                Two hundred thirty-six outpatients 60 years of age and older who met DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive disorder received 1 week of single-blind placebo before being randomly assigned to 12 weeks of double-blind, parallel-group treatment with flexible daily doses of either sertraline (range, 50-100 mg) or fluoxetine (range, 20-40 mg). Primary efficacy measures consisted of the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Clinical Global Impressions scale ratings. Secondary outcome assessments included clinician- and patient-rated measures of depression symptoms and factors, cognitive functioning, and quality of life, as well as plasma drug concentrations, which were correlated with clinical response.
                Both drugs produced a similarly positive response on the primary efficacy measures, with 12-week responder rates of 73% for sertraline and 71% for fluoxetine. Sertraline-treated patients showed statistically greater cognitive improvement on several measures. Both drugs were safe and well tolerated.
                Data indicate that both drugs are effective antidepressants for the treatment of depressed elderly outpatients. Differences in cognitive performance effects deserve further investigation. Citalopram and sertraline are widely prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). There is no conclusive evidence to show superiority of citalopram or sertraline in terms of efficacy or tolerability. Hence this study was designed to compare short term efficacy and safety of citalopram and sertraline in major depressive disorder (MDD) in Indian patients.
                In an open, randomized study, 100 patients were divided into two groups. In Group A (n = 50) patients received citalopram (20-60 mg/day) for 6 weeks. In Group B (n = 50) patients received sertraline (50-150 mg/day) for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated at baseline and then at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 weeks.
                There was significant improvement in Hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS), Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) and Amritsar depressive inventory (ADI) scores (p < 0.05) with both the drugs. However, the decrease in score was more with citalopram (p < 0.05). Onset of action of citalopram was earlier as compared to sertraline (p < 0.05). The number of responders and remitters was also more with citalopram (p < 0.05). No serious adverse event was reported in either of the groups.
                Citalopram had shown better efficacy, earlier onset of action and more number of responders and remitters as compared to sertraline in MDD in Indian patients.
                Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The comparative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) was recently debated. Meta-analyses, based mainly on fluoxetine comparator data, suggest that the SNRI venlafaxine has superior efficacy to SSRIs in treatment of major depression.
                To compare quality of life (QOL), efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with sertraline and venlafaxine extended release (XR) for treatment of DSM-IV major depression.
                This was an 8-week, double-blind, randomized study of sertraline (50-150 mg/day) versus venlafaxine XR (75-225 mg/day), followed by a 2-week taper period. Subjects were recruited from 7 sites in Turkey and 6 sites in Australia between October 2002 and July 2003. The primary outcome measure was the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included measures of depression (including response and remission), anxiety, pain, safety (e.g., blood pressure), and tolerability (e.g., discontinuation symptoms).
                A total of 163 subjects received study treatment (women, 69%; mean age, 37.0 [SD = 12.9] years). No significant differences in QOL or efficacy were noted between treatments on the primary or secondary endpoints for the total study population or the anxious depression and severe depression subgroups. A priori analyses of symptoms associated with treatment discontinuation demonstrated no difference between treatment groups. However, in post hoc analyses, sertraline was associated with less burden of moderate to severe discontinuation symptoms. Venlafaxine XR was associated with a relative increase in mean blood pressure (supine diastolic blood pressure, -4.4 mm Hg difference at week 8/last observation carried forward).
                Sertraline and venlafaxine XR demonstrated comparable effects on QOL and efficacy in treatment of major depression, although sertraline may be associated with a lower symptom burden during treatment discontinuation and a reduced risk of blood pressure increase. The efficacy of sertraline in the treatment of civilian posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been established by two large placebo-controlled trials. The purpose of the current pilot study was to obtain preliminary evidence of the efficacy of sertraline in military veterans suffering from PTSD. Outpatient Israeli military veterans with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of PTSD were randomized to 10 weeks of double-blind treatment with sertraline (50-200 mg/day; N = 23, 83% male, mean age = 41 years) or placebo (N = 19, 95% male, mean age = 38 years). Efficacy was evaluated by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-2) and by Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I) ratings. Consensus responder criteria consisted of a 30% or greater reduction in the CAPS-2 total severity score and a CGI-I rating of "much" or "very much" improved. The baseline CAPS-2 total severity score was 94.3 +/- 12.9 for sertraline patients, which is notably higher than that reported for most studies of civilian PTSD. On an intent-to-treat endpoint analysis, sertraline showed a numeric but not statistically significant advantage compared with placebo on the CAPS-2 total severity and symptom cluster scores. In the study completer analysis, the mean CGI-I score was 2.4 +/- 0.3 for sertraline and 3.4 +/- 0.3 for placebo (t = 2.55, df = 30, p = 0.016), CGI-I responder rates were 53% for sertraline and 20% for placebo (chi2 = 3.62, df = 1, p = 0.057), and combined CGI-I and CAPS-2 responder rates (>or=30% reduction in baseline CAPS-2 score) were 41% for sertraline and 20% for placebo (chi2 = 1.39, df = 1, p = 0.238). Sertraline treatment was well tolerated, with a 13% discontinuation rate as a result of adverse events. This pilot study suggests that sertraline may be an effective treatment in patients with predominantly combat-induced PTSD, although the effect size seems to be somewhat smaller than what has been reported in civilian PTSD studies. Adequately powered studies are needed to confirm these results and to assess whether continued treatment maintains or further improves response. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common illness associated with significant disability. Few large, placebo-controlled trials have been reported.
                Outpatients with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of moderate-to-severe PTSD were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with either sertraline (N = 100) in flexible daily doses in the range of 50 to 200 mg or placebo (N = 108). Primary outcome measures consisted of the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-2) total severity score, the patient-rated Impact of Event Scale (IES), and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I) ratings.
                Mixed-effects analyses found significantly steeper improvement slopes for sertraline compared with placebo on the CAPS-2 (t = 2.96, P =.003), the IES (t = 2.26, P =.02), the CGI-I score (t = 3.62, P<.001), and the CGI-S score (t = 4.40, P<.001). An intent-to-treat end-point analysis found a 60% responder rate for sertraline and a 38% responder rate for placebo (chi(2)(1) = 8.48, P =.004). Sertraline treatment was well tolerated, with a 9% discontinuation rate because of adverse events, compared with 5% for placebo. Adverse events that were significantly more common in subjects given sertraline compared with placebo consisted of insomnia (35% vs 22%), diarrhea (28% vs 11%), nausea (23% vs 11%), fatigue (13% vs 5%), and decreased appetite (12% vs 1%).
                The results of the current study suggest that sertraline is a safe, well-tolerated, and significantly effective treatment for PTSD. Sertraline and fluoxetine have pharmacokinetic and pharmacologic differences, which may be of clinical relevance.
                A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of 6 weeks' duration comparing the efficacy and safety of sertraline (50-100 mg/day) with those of fluoxetine (20-40 mg/day) was conducted in 286 psychiatric outpatients with DSM-III-R major depression or bipolar disorder (depressed). Primary efficacy measurements consisted of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. Secondary measurements included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), the Raskin Depression Scale, the Covi Anxiety Scale, and the Leeds Sleep Questionnaire. Additionally, scores for two items and five factors from the HAM-D were analyzed.
                Efficacy was based on 124 evaluable patients in each treatment group. As measured by HAM-D and CGI-Severity scores, there was a significant (p < .001) improvement from baseline to each follow-up visit in both treatment groups with no statistically significant difference between groups. There was also no significant difference in the proportion of responders in each group. CGI-Improvement responder rates were 69% for sertraline and 67% for fluoxetine. Results of secondary efficacy measurements followed the same trend, although from the second week of treatment there was a numerical advantage (not statistically significant) for sertraline over fluoxetine in improving anxiety symptoms as measured by the total HAM-A score. Headache and nausea were the most frequently reported events for both drugs. The incidence of early patient withdrawals due to treatment-emergent adverse events was 14% for sertraline and 13% for fluoxetine. The starting dosage (sertraline 50 mg/day, fluoxetine 20 mg/day) was the final dosage in 76% of patients in both treatment groups.
                Sertraline and fluoxetine were equally effective and well tolerated in patients with major depression and associated anxiety. Evidence that major depression can be a significant hindrance to smoking cessation prompted this examination of the usefulness of sertraline as a cessation aid for smokers with a history of major depression. Specifically, sertraline's efficacy for smoking abstinence and its effects on withdrawal symptoms were evaluated.
                The study design included a 1-week placebo washout, a 9-week double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase followed by a 9-day taper period, and a 6-month drug-free follow-up. One hundred thirty-four smokers with a history of major depression were randomly assigned to receive sertraline (N=68) or matching placebo (N=66); all received intensive individual cessation counseling during nine clinic visits.
                Sertraline treatment produced a lower total withdrawal symptom score and less irritability, anxiety, craving, and restlessness than placebo. However, the abstinence rates did not significantly differ between treatment groups: 28.8% (19 of 66) for placebo and 33.8% (23 of 68) for sertraline at the end of treatment and 16.7% (11 of 66) for placebo and 11.8% (eight of 68) for sertraline at the 6-month follow-up. No moderating effects of single or recurrent major depression, depressed mood at baseline, nicotine dependence level, or gender were observed.
                Sertraline did not add to the efficacy of an intensive individual counseling program in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. However, given that the end-of-treatment abstinence rate for the placebo group was much higher than expected, it is unclear whether a ceiling effect of the high level of psychological intervention received by all subjects prevented an adequate test of sertraline. The purpose of this double-blind, multicenter trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of sertraline (50-150 mg/day) with those of citalopram (20-60 mg/day) in patients with major depression in general practice during 24 weeks of treatment. The patients were assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions of severity and improvement scales. Observed and spontaneously reported adverse events were recorded and side-effects were assessed by means of the UKU Side-Effect Scale. Altogether 400 patients were randomized into the study. A total of 308 patients completed the 24-week study in accordance with the protocol. A significant reduction in the total Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores was observed in both treatment groups as early as 2 weeks, with no statistically significant differences between the drugs. In the intention to treat-last observation carried forward analysis 76% responded to treatment in the sertraline and 81% in the citalopram group. The final mean doses were 82 mg/day (64% higher than baseline) in the sertraline group and 34 mg/day (70% higher than baseline) in the citalopram group. The response rate in completers in accordance with protocol was 90% in the sertraline group and 93% in the citalopram group. The side-effects were those usually seen, and both sertraline and citalopram were considered to be well tolerated. It was concluded that patients with major depression in general practice respond well to 24 weeks of treatment with sertraline or citalopram. With regard to efficacy, no statistically significant differences were found between the drugs. We designed this study to determine whether the daily treatment of nondepressed acute stroke patients with sertraline reduced the incidence of depression at follow-up.
                111 patients with recent stroke (< 2 weeks; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision criteria) were randomly assigned to treatment with placebo (N = 56) and sertraline (N = 55, 50 mg once daily) in this double-blind, placebo-controlled 24-week clinical trial. Subjects were recruited from the 2 largest teaching hospitals of Western Australia between June 2002 and June 2004. The primary endpoint of interest was development of clinically significant depressive symptoms as assessed by a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-depression subscale score of 8 or above, or as diagnosed by the treating physician during 24 weeks.
                There was no significant difference in the incidence of depressive symptoms during 24 weeks of treatment (16.7% [8/48] sertraline vs. 21.6% [11/51] placebo, rate ratio = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.3 to 2.1, p = .590). The trial medication was discontinued by 51.8% (29/56) of patients assigned placebo and 47.3% (26/55) assigned sertraline (p = .634), most often because of perceived side effects or because the treating physician introduced an antidepressant medication.
                Twenty-four-week treatment with 50 mg of sertraline once daily initiated within 2 weeks of onset of acute stroke is not a significantly more effective strategy to prevent 6-month depression than usual care plus placebo among nondepressed stroke patients. New pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies need to be developed to reduce the health and financial burden associated with depression after stroke. 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. Depression is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. As depressive disorders carry a high risk of relapse, treatment strategies include the use of a 6-month continuation period after resolution of the acute episode. Tolerability is of major importance when determining compliance and outcome during long-term therapy. Due to the superior tolerability profile of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) over the older tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), the former may be more suitable for extended therapy. Comparative studies have not shown differences between the SSRIs in terms of efficacy, but side-effect profiles may vary. A multicenter, double-blind, comparative study of sertraline and fluoxetine was carried out in outpatients fulfilling DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive disorder. Patients were randomised to receive sertraline (50-150 mg, n = 118) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg, n = 120) for 24 weeks. Assessments for depression (HAM-D, HAD, CGI-I, CGI-S), anxiety (Covi), sleep (Leeds Sleep Evaluation scale) and quality of life (SIP) were made at study entry and at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 18 and 24. All adverse events were recorded to allow evaluation of tolerability. In total, 88 patients in the sertraline group completed the study compared with 79 in the fluoxetine group. Side effects were responsible for the premature treatment withdrawal of seven (6%) sertraline patients and 12 (10%) fluoxetine patients. Two-hundred and thirty-four patients were included in an ITT analysis up to last visit (116 sertraline, 118 fluoxetine). At study endpoint, both treatments produced a significant improvement over baseline on all efficacy variables (P < 0.001). Although the magnitude of global changes in depression, anxiety, and quality of life was larger with sertraline than fluoxetine, none of the between-group differences reached statistical significance. However, significant differences in favour of sertraline were observed for individual HAM-D items including item 4 (insomnia onset) (P = 0.04), item 9 (agitation) (P = 0.02), and item 13 (general somatic symptoms) (P = 0.008). In addition, sertraline was associated with significantly superior performance on the Leeds Sleep Evaluation scale and on SIP items relating to sleep and rest, emotional behaviour and ambulation. Both sertraline and fluoxetine were well tolerated with no significant differences between treatments. There have been no studies specifically examining the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants for the symptoms of depression in schizophrenia. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of sertraline as a treatment for depressive symptoms in patients with stable, chronic schizophrenia. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was used as the principal outcome measure and other measures of depressive symptoms as secondary outcome measures. Twenty-six patients were entered into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial of sertraline and were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (13 in each group). Eight patients in the sertraline group and 12 in the placebo group completed at least four weeks in the study and were considered to have had adequate treatment. On the ITT analysis, the mean score on the BDI fell 14.5% for the sertraline group and 5.6% for the placebo group (p > 0.05); the mean score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) fell 16.99% for the sertraline group and 8.3% for the placebo group (p > 0.05). When the analysis was repeated for those who had received adequate treatment, the mean BDI score fell by 28% for the sertraline group and 6% for the placebo group (p = 0.1); the mean HDRS score fell 31% for the sertraline group and 8.6% for the placebo group (p = 0.02). On the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale, 10 of the 13 patients on sertraline improved against four of the 13 in the placebo group (p = 0.05). Sertraline-treated patients showed a significant improvement on the anxiety/ depression subscale of the BPRS on ITT analysis (F = 10.1, p = 0.004). There was no significant effect on negative or positive symptoms. Sertraline was well tolerated. The results suggest that sertraline is useful as a treatment for depressive symptoms in schizophrenia. The acute treatment efficacy, tolerability, and effects on health-related quality of life of sertraline (50-200 mg/day) versus imipramine (75-225 mg/day) were compared in outpatients with non-melancholic depression. The study employed an open-label, parallel-group design. One hundred and sixteen patients were randomized to receive sertraline and 123 to receive imipramine for 8 weeks. In the intent-to-treat (ITT), last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) analysis, sertraline produced statistically significantly greater improvements in depressive (21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D(21)] scores of 24.9 and 24.4 were reduced to 10.3 and 13.1 at endpoint, P<.005) and anxiety symptoms (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A] scores of 21.8 and 21.9 were reduced to 9.5 and 13.9, P<.01), as well as in response (69.0% versus 53.7% at endpoint, P=.016) and remission rates (51.3% versus 38.0% at endpoint, P=.041) from week 4 onwards compared with imipramine. The proportion of patients who were 'very much improved' or 'much improved' (Clinical Global Impressions Scale of Improvement [CGI-I] score of 1 or 2) was significantly higher at endpoint in the sertraline group (76.1%) than in the imipramine group (62.8%) (P=.028). At week 8, patients in both treatment groups showed clear improvements in quality of life, although nonstatistically significant differences were evident in the quality of life of sertraline- versus imipramine-treated patients. Sertraline was significantly superior in tolerability with less discontinuations due to adverse events (10.3%) compared with the imipramine group (24.4%) (P=.004). It was concluded that sertraline is more effective than imipramine in the acute treatment of depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with non-melancholic depression. Poststroke depression is a frequent condition and important to treat. The aim of this trial was to study the efficacy and tolerability of sertraline.
                In 4 Swedish stroke centers, 123 patients (aged 70.7 +/- 9.9 years) were enrolled during the period September 1998 to January 2001 in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 26-week trial, at a mean of 128 +/- 97 days (range, 3-375 days) after stroke, if they fulfilled DSM-IV criteria of major depressive episode (N = 76) or minor depressive disorder (N = 47). The primary efficacy variable was a change in depression assessed by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. The Emotional Distress Scale (EDS) was administered and the occurrence of emotionalism and quality of life (QoL) were assessed, as well as neurologic recovery. Efficacy analyses were intention-to-treat, short-term (week 6) and long-term (week 26).
                Of the 123 patients, 62 were treated with sertraline (50-100 mg/day) and 61 with placebo. Both groups improved substantially, with no differences between the treatments, either for major depressive episode or minor depressive disorder, or for short- or long-term antidepressant effect and neurologic outcome. EDS revealed a better outcome with sertraline at week 6 (p < .05). At week 26, the improvement in QoL was better in sertraline patients (p < .05) and there was a trend for emotionalism (p = .07). No serious side effects were seen.
                Poststroke depression as measured by a conventional depression rating scale improved over time irrespective of treatment. Positive effects specific to sertraline were identified in emotional distress, emotionalism, and QoL. The study indicates that poststroke emotional reactions comprise depression and other domains susceptible to pharmacologic therapy. In nursing home residents and other frail elderly patients, old age and potential drug-drug and drug-disease interactions may affect the relative safety and efficacy of medications. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and sertraline for the treatment of depression among nursing home residents.
                The study was a 10-week randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of venlafaxine (doses up to 150 mg/day) versus sertraline (doses up to 100 mg/day) among 52 elderly nursing home residents with a DSM-IV depressive disorder and, at most, moderate dementia. The primary measure of outcome was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Adverse events were monitored and recorded systematically during the trial.
                Twelve subjects were discontinued due to serious adverse events (SAE), 5 were discontinued due to other significant side effects, and 2 withdrew consent. Tolerability estimated by the time to termination was lower for venlafaxine than sertraline for serious adverse events (log rank statistic = 5.28, p =.022), for serious adverse events or side effects (log rank statistic = 8.08, p =.005), or for serious adverse events, side effects, or withdrawal of consent (log rank statistic = 10.04, p =.002). Mean (SD) HAM-D scores at baseline were 20.2 (3.4) for sertraline and 20.3 (3.7) for venlafaxine; intent-to-treat endpoint HAM-D scores were 12.2 (5.1) and 15.7 (6.2) (F = 3.45; p =.069). There were no differences in categorical responses for the intent-to-treat sample or completers.
                In this frail elderly population, venlafaxine was less well tolerated and, possibly, less safe than sertraline without evidence for an increase in efficacy. This unexpected finding demonstrates the need for systematic research on the safety of drugs in the frail elderly. Sexual dysfunction, a frequently reported side effect of many antidepressants, may result in patient dissatisfaction and noncompliance with treatment regimens. This paper describes the results of the first placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy, safety, and effects on sexual functioning of sustained-release bupropion (bupropion SR) and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline. This randomized, double-masked, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter trial enrolled 360 patients with moderate-to-severe recurrent major depression. Patients were treated with bupropion SR 150 to 400 mg/d, sertraline 50 to 200 mg/d, or placebo for up to 8 weeks. Patients' depression and sexual functioning were assessed at weekly or biweekly clinic visits; safety was assessed by regular monitoring of adverse events, vital signs, and body weight. Treatment groups were similar at baseline in terms of age, sex, and race, and most patients had a diagnosis of moderate uncomplicated depression. Patients treated with bupropion SR or sertraline showed similar improvements on all efficacy measures; both active treatments were superior to placebo in improving scores on all rating scales for depression at various time points. Significantly more patients treated with sertraline experienced orgasmic dysfunction throughout the study than did patients treated with bupropion SR or placebo (P < 0.001). Headache was the most frequently reported adverse event in all 3 treatment groups and occurred with similar frequency in each group (30% to 40%). Nausea (31%), diarrhea (26%), insomnia (18%), and somnolence (17%) occurred in significantly more patients in the sertraline group than in the bupropion SR group (18%, 7%, 13%, and 3%, respectively) and the placebo group (10%, 11%, 4%, and 6%, respectively). Dry mouth occurred more frequently with bupropion SR (19%) than with sertraline (14%) or placebo (12%), although the differences were not significant. Changes in vital signs were similar in all groups. Similar (small, but not statistically significant) decreases in mean body weight were seen in both the bupropion SR (-1.06 kg) and sertraline (-0.79 kg) groups, whereas the placebo group experienced a minor increase (0.21 kg). Although bupropion SR and sertraline were similarly well tolerated and effective in the treatment of depression, sertraline treatment was more often associated with sexual dysfunction and certain other adverse events compared with bupropion SR and placebo. Therefore, bupropion SR may be an appropriate choice as an antidepressant for the treatment of sexually active patients. We observed the relief of hot flashes in breast cancer survivors taking tamoxifen and treated with sertraline for depression. Our objective was to assess the effect of sertraline on the frequency and severity of hot flashes, mood status, and health-related quality of life. We used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study using 6 weeks of sertraline (50 mg each morning) versus placebo. Study participants were 62 breast cancer survivors from an oncology clinic in a tertiary care center on adjuvant tamoxifen reporting bothersome hot flashes. Patients were asked to keep a daily hot flash diary to record hot flash frequency and severity, from which hot flash scores (frequency x severity) were calculated. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies depression scale and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy--Breast (FACT-B) (at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks) were used to assess mood and quality of life. Sixty-two women were accrued. Forty-seven women (median age 53.9 years, range 36.6-77.1 years; 89% postmenopausal; 85.5% Caucasian) completed the first 6 weeks and 39 completed 12 weeks. The baseline daily hot flash frequency and score were 5.8 (standard deviation 4.1) and 11.5 (14.0), respectively. At the end of the first 6 weeks, hot flash frequency decreased by 50% in 36% of those taking sertraline compared to 27% taking placebo. In the crossover analysis, sertraline was significantly more effective than placebo: women crossing from placebo to sertraline had a decrease (-0.9 and -1.7) in hot flash frequency and score, whereas those crossing from sertraline to placebo had an increase (1.5 and 3.4) in hot flash frequency and score (p = 0.03 and 0.03). Forty-eight percent preferred the sertraline period, 11% preferred the placebo period, and 41% had no preference (p = 0.006). Measures of depression and quality of life were within normal range and did not change significantly within treatment groups. Sertraline decreases hot flashes in breast cancer survivors taking tamoxifen and women prefer sertraline to placebo. Further study of sertraline for the management of hot flashes is warranted. Few studies have compared the treatment efficacy of the 2 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors sertraline and fluoxetine.
                A randomized, single-blind, parallel-group study of 10 weeks' duration comparing the efficacy of sertraline, 50 mg/day; sertraline, 100 mg/day; and fluoxetine, 20 mg/day, was conducted in 44 psychiatric outpatients with DSM-IV unipolar major depressive disorder. Antidepressant dosages were doubled at 6 weeks for subjects who had not achieved remission. Primary outcome measurements included the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I), with scores of < or = 7 on the HAM-D and < or = 2 on the CGI-I representing a positive treatment response, i.e., remission.
                At 4 weeks, significant differences in rate of positive treatment response were noted, with 0% for sertraline, 50 mg; 46% for sertraline, 100 mg; and 31% for fluoxetine, 20 mg (p = .023). At 6 weeks, positive treatment response rates were 21%, 43%, and 31% for subjects taking 50 mg of sertraline, those taking 100 mg of sertraline, and those taking 20 mg of fluoxetine, respectively, with treatment groups no longer differing significantly from each other. In subjects for whom antidepressant dose was doubled at week 6, response rates at week 10 (4 weeks on increased dose) were 40% for sertraline, 100 mg; 43% for sertraline, 200 mg; and 55% for fluoxetine, 40 mg.
                Subjects taking sertraline, 100 mg, and fluoxetine, 20 mg, demonstrated an earlier treatment response compared with subjects taking sertraline, 50 mg. For patients without a positive response at 6 weeks, an increased antidepressant dose resulted in remission for a substantial proportion of patients when assessed 4 weeks later. The study compared the safety and efficacy of sertraline, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and placebo in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder in children and adolescents.
                The study subjects were 22 children and adolescents age 5-17 years who met the DSM-IV criteria for generalized anxiety disorder according to the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for Children-Revised and who had a Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale score > or = 16. The patients underwent a 2-3-week prestudy evaluation period, followed by a 9-week double-blind treatment phase in which they were randomly assigned in blocks of four to receive either sertraline or pill placebo. The maximum dose of sertraline was 50 mg/day. Primary outcome measures were the Hamilton anxiety scale and the Clinical Global Impression scale.
                The Hamilton anxiety scale total score, psychic factor, and somatic factor and the Clinical Global Impression severity and improvement scales showed significant differences with treatment in favor of sertraline over placebo beginning at week 4. Self-report measures reflected these results at the end of treatment.
                The results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial suggest that sertraline at the daily dose of 50 mg is safe and efficacious for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder in children and adolescents. Despite the high prevalence, chronicity, and associated comorbidity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the community, few placebo-controlled studies have evaluated the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for this disorder.
                To determine if treatment with sertraline hydrochloride effectively diminishes symptoms of PTSD of moderate to marked severity.
                Twelve-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial preceded by a 2-week, single-blind placebo lead-in period, conducted between May 1996 and June 1997.
                Outpatient psychiatric clinics in 8 academic medical centers and 6 clinical research centers.
                A total of 187 outpatients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition diagnosis of PTSD and a Clinician Administered PTSD Scale Part 2 (CAPS-2) minimum total severity score of at least 50 at baseline (mean age, 40 years; mean duration of illness, 12 years; 73% were women; and 61.5% experienced physical or sexual assault).
                Patients were randomized to acute treatment with sertraline hydrochloride in flexible daily dosages of 50 to 200 mg/d, following 1 week at 25 mg/d (n=94); or placebo (n=93).
                Baseline-to-end-point changes in CAPS-2 total severity score, Impact of Event Scale total score (IES), and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), and CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) ratings, compared by treatment vs placebo groups. Results Sertraline treatment yielded significantly greater improvement than placebo on 3 of the 4 primary outcome measures (mean change from baseline to end point for CAPS-2 total score, -33.0 vs -23.2 [P =.02], and for CGI-S, -1.2 vs -0.8 [P=.01]; mean CGI-I score at end point, 2.5 vs 3.0 [P=.02]), with the fourth measure, the IES total score, showing a trend toward significance (mean change from baseline to end point, -16.2 vs -12.1; P=.07). Using a conservative last-observation-carried-forward analysis, treatment with sertraline resulted in a responder rate of 53% at study end point compared with 32% for placebo (P=.008, with responder defined as >30% reduction from baseline in CAPS-2 total severity score and a CGI-I score of 1 [very much improved], or 2 [much improved]). Significant (P<.05) efficacy was evident for sertraline from week 2 on the CAPS-2 total severity score. Sertraline had significant efficacy vs placebo on the CAPS-2 PTSD symptom clusters of avoidance/numbing (P=.02) and increased arousal (P=.03) but not on reexperiencing/intrusion (P=.14). Sertraline was well tolerated, with insomnia the only adverse effect reported significantly more often than placebo (16.0% vs 4.3%; P=.01).
                Our data suggest that sertraline is a safe, well-tolerated, and effective treatment for PTSD. To evaluate the efficacy of emotional support and counselling combined with placebo or antidepressants with single or dual mechanism of action in the treatment of depression in primary care.
                Randomised double blind study.
                Several locations in Norway.
                372 patients with depression.
                Improvement (clinical remission) reported both by the patient (Montgomery Asberg depression rating scale) and the physician (clinical global improvement and impression scales).
                Intention to treat analyses showed 47% remission in patients randomised to placebo compared with 61% remission in patients randomised to sertraline (odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.96) and 54% in patients randomised to mianserin (0.75, 0.44 to 1.27). Women responded better than men (1.86, 1.17 to 2.96). Subgroup analyses showed that subjects with recurrent depression (n=273) responded more frequently to sertraline than to placebo (0.43, 0.23 to 0.82) than those having their first episode of depression (1.18, 0.39 to 3.61). Statistically significant interactions between type of drug treatment and history of depression were not shown by logistic regression.
                The combination of active drug and simple psychological treatment (counselling, emotional support, and close follow up over a 24 week period) was more effective than simple psychological treatment alone, in particular for those with recurrent depression. Overall, women may benefit more than men. If confirmed in future studies, the findings should lead to more differentiated treatment guidelines for depression in primary care. This 8-week, double-blind, randomized trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and sertraline in patients with major depression.
                Outpatients (N = 147) with DSM-IV major depressive disorder and a baseline 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of at least 18 were randomly assigned to venlafaxine, 37.5 mg b.i.d., or sertraline, 50 mg once daily. From day 15, the doses could be increased to venlafaxine, 75 mg b.i.d., or sertraline, 50 mg b.i.d. Efficacy was assessed with the 21-item HAM-D, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI) using a modified intent-to-treat analysis.
                No significant differences were noted between treatments for mean HAM-D, MADRS, or CGI scores. At week 8, the HAM-D response rate was 83% with venlafaxine (N = 75) and 68% with sertraline (N = 72) (p = .05). A HAM-D score less than 10 was recorded in 68% of venlafaxine-treated and 45% of sertraline-treated patients at week 8 (p = .008). Among patients who increased their dose, the remission rate (HAM-D score < 10) was 67% with venlafaxine and 36% with sertraline at week 8 (p < .05). The overall discontinuation rate was 21% with venlafaxine and 17% with sertraline. The most common adverse events with venlafaxine were nausea, headache, and sweating and with sertraline were nausea, headache, and diarrhea.
                Among patients who increased their dose, approximately twice as many experienced a remission with venlafaxine, which is a more clinically relevant endpoint than response and represents the proportion of patients who have recovered or are well. Major depressive disorder (MDD) occurs in 15% to 23% of patients with acute coronary syndromes and constitutes an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality. However, no published evidence exists that antidepressant drugs are safe or efficacious in patients with unstable ischemic heart disease.
                To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sertraline treatment of MDD in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI) or unstable angina and free of other life-threatening medical conditions.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 40 outpatient cardiology centers and psychiatry clinics in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia. Enrollment began in April 1997 and follow-up ended in April 2001.
                A total of 369 patients with MDD (64% male; mean age, 57.1 years; mean 17-item Hamilton Depression [HAM-D] score, 19.6; MI, 74%; unstable angina, 26%).
                After a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in, patients were randomly assigned to receive sertraline in flexible dosages of 50 to 200 mg/d (n = 186) or placebo (n = 183) for 24 weeks.
                The primary (safety) outcome measure was change from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); secondary measures included surrogate cardiac measures and cardiovascular adverse events, as well as scores on the HAM-D scale and Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale (CGI-I) in the total randomized sample, in a group with any prior history of MDD, and in a more severe MDD subgroup defined a priori by a HAM-D score of at least 18 and history of 2 or more prior episodes of MDD.
                Sertraline had no significant effect on mean (SD) LVEF (sertraline: baseline, 54% [10%]; week 16, 54% [11%]; placebo: baseline, 52% [13%]; week 16, 53% [13%]), treatment-emergent increase in ventricular premature complex (VPC) runs (sertraline: 13.1%; placebo: 12.9%), QTc interval greater than 450 milliseconds at end point (sertraline: 12%; placebo: 13%), or other cardiac measures. All comparisons were statistically nonsignificant (P> or = .05). The incidence of severe cardiovascular adverse events was 14.5% with sertraline and 22.4% with placebo. In the total randomized sample, the CGI-I (P =.049), but not the HAM-D (P =.14), favored sertraline. The CGI-I responder rates for sertraline were significantly higher than for placebo in the total sample (67% vs 53%; P =.01), in the group with at least 1 prior episode of depression (72% vs 51%; P =.003), and in the more severe MDD group (78% vs 45%; P =.001). In the latter 2 groups, both CGI-I and HAM-D measures were significantly better in those assigned to sertraline.
                Our results suggest that sertraline is a safe and effective treatment for recurrent depression in patients with recent MI or unstable angina and without other life-threatening medical conditions. This study was designed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of sertraline and nortriptyline for the treatment of major depressive disorder in older adults.
                A double-blind, parallel group design was used to compare 210 outpatients, 60 years of age and older, who met DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive episode and had a minimum Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of 18. The patients were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with either sertraline (50-150 mg/day) or nortriptyline (25-100 mg/day).
                The safety profiles of the two treatments were similar except that nortriptyline treatment was associated with a significant increase in pulse rate, whereas sertraline was associated with a nonsignificant decrease. Efficacy of both drugs was similar for both treatments at all time points, with 71.6% (N=53 of 74) of the sertraline-treated patients and 61.4% (N=43 of 70) of the nortriptyline-treated patients achieving responder status by week 12. Time to response was also similar, with more than 75% of the improvement in scores on the Hamilton depression scale having occurred by week 6. Secondary efficacy measures (posttreatment measures of cognitive function, memory, and quality of life) revealed a significant advantage for sertraline treatment.
                Primary efficacy measures showed sertraline and nortriptyline to be similarly effective. With secondary outcome measures there was consistent evidence of an advantage for the sertraline-treated group. The clinical impact of these measures on the long-term well-being of elderly depressed patients should be examined in a study of maintenance treatment. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of 150 mg/day imipramine and 50 mg/day sertraline for the treatment of a major depressive episode (DSM-IV) in older adults (N = 55) in an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial. Intention-to-treat analysis (last observation carried forwards) showed a reduction of 50% or more on the baseline scores of the Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale (MADRS) in 60.7% and 55.6% of patients receiving imipramine and sertraline, respectively (p = .698). Full remission of symptoms (MADRS < 9) was observed in 50.0% and 51.8% of patients, respectively (p = .891). Side effects were more frequent among patients treated with imipramine (86.7%) than among patients treated with sertraline (42.1%) (p = .008). Dropout rates were high in both groups (46.4% and 29.6% respectively, p =.200). These results indicate that imipramine and sertraline are equally effective for the treatment of major depression in later life, although adverse reactions are more frequent among subjects treated with imipramine than with sertraline. Efficacy and acceptability of tianeptine were investigated in a multicenter, randomized, double blind, and sertraline-controlled study. As a total, 212 in- or outpatients with DSM IV major depression single episode, recurrent and bipolar depression, were treated for 42 days either with tianeptine (37.5 mg) or with sertraline (50 mg). At inclusion, sociodemographic, physical and psychological parameters showed no significant intergroup differences. MADRS responders (50% reduction of baseline score) were 66% and 67% with tianeptine and sertraline, respectively. No statistical interdrug differences were observed either in the number of withdrawals or in the efficacy and acceptability parameters. 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) The authors tested the effect of sertraline in the prevention of poststroke depression. After experiencing an acute ischemic stroke, nondepressed patients (N=137) were randomly assigned to 12 months of double-blind treatment with either sertraline (N=70) or placebo (N=67). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed sertraline to have significantly superior prophylactic efficacy compared with placebo. Two definitions of clinical depression were used: total score >18 on the HAM-D(17) and score >or=9 on the HAM-D(6). Approximately 10% of the sertraline-treated group developed depression according to either definition, whereas 30% developed depression in the placebo group. On the HAM-D(6) the superiority of sertraline to placebo was demonstrated already after 6 weeks of therapy. Treatment was well tolerated; patients treated with sertraline experienced significantly fewer adverse events. reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during continuation therapy. This investigation reports the differential effect of 6 months of treatment with sertraline versus paroxetine for symptoms of depression, quality of life, and personality outcomes. Outpatients with unipolar major depression (DSM-III-R) were randomly assigned to receive 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with flexible doses of paroxetine (20-40 mg) or sertraline (50-150 mg). Assessments included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Clinical Global Impression Scale, the Battelle Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders screen questionnaire. One hundred seventy-six patients (mean age, 43 years; 64% female; baseline MADRS, 30.3) were treated with sertraline and 177 patients (mean age, 42 years; 71% female; MADRS, 30.7) with paroxetine. Antidepressant efficacy during continuation therapy was sustained, with only 2% of patients receiving sertraline and 9% of patients receiving paroxetine suffering a relapse. Continuation therapy resulted in a substantial conversion of responders during short-term treatment to full remission: remitter rates increased from 52% to 80% for sertraline and from 57% to 74% for paroxetine. The improvements in quality of life were related to a reduced depression score. SSRI treatment had significant beneficial effects on both categorical and dimensional measures of personality. A logistic regression analysis identified early response (25% reduction in MADRS scores at week 2) as the most important predictor of treatment response, whereas high severity, chronicity, and poor baseline quality of life had no effect. Both treatments were well-tolerated, with sertraline having a somewhat lower side effect profile. Sertraline and paroxetine demonstrated comparable efficacy during short-term and continuation therapy. Treatment was associated with significant improvement in quality of life and with reductions in axis II personality psychopathology. The present randomized, double blind, parallel group, controlled, multi-centric trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in comparison with citalopram and sertraline in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Outpatients (N=214) with an ongoing/newly diagnosed ICD-10 major depressive episode and a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of > 18 were randomly assigned to citalopram, 20-40 mg/day (74 patients), escitalopram, 10-20 mg/day (69 patients) and sertraline, 50-150 mg/day (71 patients), for a 4-week double-blind treatment period, with dosage adjustment (after 2 weeks of treatment) according to the response to treatment. Clinical response was evaluated by the 17 items HAM-D and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales, which were recorded at baseline and at weekly intervals. Tolerability was evaluated by observed/spontaneously reported adverse changes in laboratory parameters (baseline and after 4 weeks). Response rate was defined as a decrease in HAM-D score by 50% from baseline and remission rate was defined as a HAM-D score of < 8. Response rate at the end of two week were 58% for escitalopram (10mg/day), 49% for citalopram (20mg/day) and 52% for sertraline (50-100mg/day). Response rate at the end of four week were 90% for escitalopram (10-20mg/day), 86% for citalopram (20-40mg/day) and 97% for sertraline (100-150mg/day). The Remission rates at the end of four weeks were 74% for escitalopram, 65% for citalopram and 77% for sertraline. Adverse experiences were reported by 45% of patients in escitalopram group, 58% patients in citalopram and 56% patients in the sertraline group. Additionally, there were lesser dropouts and lesser requirement for dose escalation in escitalopram than in citalopram and sertraline group. In conclusion Escitalopram, the Senantiomer of the citalopram is a safe and effective antidepressant in the Indian population. It has potentially superior efficacy than citalopram and a comparable efficacy to sertraline with fewer side effects than both citalopram and sertraline. Despite the high prevalence of dysthymia and its associated morbidity, few controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of antidepressant medication for this disorder. A 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sertraline hydrochloride and imipramine hydrochloride in treating dysthymia.
                A total of 416 outpatients (271 women and 145 men) aged 25 to 65 years with DSM-III-R-defined, early-onset, primary dysthymia without concurrent major depression were randomized to 12 weeks of treatment with sertraline, imipramine, or placebo.
                Both active treatments resulted in significantly reduced scores on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (P = .04 and P = .01 for sertraline and imipramine vs placebo, respectively), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (P = .01 and P = .003 vs placebo, respectively), Hopkins Symptom Checklist (P < .05), and the self-rated version of the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms (P < .05). With the use of a Clinical Global impressions improvement score of 1 or 2 (very much or much improved) to define response, response rates were 59% for sertraline, 64% for imipramine, and 44% for placebo (P = .02 for sertraline vs placebo and P < .001 for imipramine vs placebo). A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving imipramine than those receiving sertraline or placebo discontinued treatment because of adverse events (P = .001 and P < .001, respectively).
                Pharmacotherapy provides considerable relief from the symptoms of dysthymia in patients suffering from this chronic affective disorder, with both sertraline and imipramine being more effective than placebo. The greater tolerability of sertraline is an important consideration because of the chronicity of dysthymia, which may require prolonged treatment with antidepressant medication. Despite a growing use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in older people, only one trial has examined their prophylactic efficacy in people aged 65 years and over.
                To examine the efficacy of sertraline in preventing the recurrence of depression in older people living in the community.
                Participants were openly treated with sertraline and then randomised into a double-blind, placebo-controlled continuation/maintenance study of about 2 years duration. Drug dosage was maintained at levels that achieved remission.
                No significant difference between the sertraline and placebo groups was found in the proportion of recurrences (-7.9%; 95% CI -28.06 to 12.23). Increased age and minor residual symptoms during the continuation phase were associated with recurrence.
                Sertraline at therapeutic dosage does not provide significant protection against recurrence. Using data from a larger 12-week clinical trial, the authors evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of sertraline (n=42) and fluoxetine (n=33) in patients over age 70 with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Similar improvement on measures of depression, including remission of depressive symptoms, was evident, although significantly more sertraline-treated patients achieved a criterion clinical response. Significantly greater improvement for the sertraline group was apparent on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, but not on two other measures of cognitive functioning. Although there was no difference in the rate of adverse events experienced, fluoxetine-treated patients lost significantly more body weight over the 12-week trial than did sertraline-treated patients, whereas the latter group exhibited significantly more "shaking. " This trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed dose of escitalopram 10 mg/day with sertraline optimally dosed within its recommended dose range (50-200 mg/day) for the treatment of major depressive disorder.
                In this multicenter trial, depressed patients (DSM-IV defined; baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] 22) aged 18-80 years were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with escitalopram (10 mg/day) or sertraline (50-200 mg/day) following a 1-week single-blind placebo lead-in period. There was no placebo comparison arm. Sertraline was initiated at 50 mg/day, and could be increased by 50 mg/day at weekly intervals based on clinical need and tolerability at the lower dose level. The blind was maintained with matching double-blind placebo capsules for the escitalopram group. Change from baseline to endpoint in MADRS total score (last observation carried forward) was the primary efficacy measure.
                A total of 212 patients received double-blind medication. At week 8, the mean sertraline dosage was 144 mg/day (median = 150 mg/day). Mean changes from baseline to endpoint in MADRS scores were -19.1 and -18.4 for the escitalopram and sertraline groups, respectively. At endpoint, 75% and 70% of escitalopram- and sertraline-treated patients, respectively, were responders (> or =50% improvement from baseline in mean MADRS scores). Both treatments were generally well tolerated; only 2% and 4% of patients prematurely discontinued escitalopram and sertraline treatment, respectively, due to adverse events.
                No differences in efficacy were observed for fixed-dose escitalopram 10 mg/day and sertraline flexibly dosed from 50-200 mg/day. At these doses, both escitalopram and sertraline were generally well tolerated.
This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressive agents both in terms of efficacy and acceptability, using 95% confidence intervals and a conservative approach, with a random effects analysis. However, the included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol of this review. Outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians were not reported in any of the included studies.