Search

Based on preliminary evidence of its usefulness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) was examined in comparison with olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in a TRD population. In this 12-week double-blind study, 483 subjects with unipolar, nonpsychotic TRD, with historic failure on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and prospective failure on open-label venlafaxine, were randomized to an OFC or to an olanzapine, fluoxetine, or venlafaxine monotherapy group. Venlafaxine was continued randomly in the double-blind acute phase to explore the benefits of continuation versus switching therapy. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total change score at end point was the primary outcome measure. The OFC group had significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms by week 1 of treatment (MADRS mean change =-7.2, baseline =29.6), in comparison to olanzapine (-4.8, P=.03), fluoxetine (-4.7, P=.03), or venlafaxine (-3.7, P=.002) groups and maintained its statistical separation from all three monotherapy groups through week 6. At end point, the OFC group was significantly different only from the olanzapine group (-14.1 vs. -7.7, P<.001). Analysis of a subgroup of subjects who had an SSRI failure in their current depressive episode (n=334) revealed statistical separation from both olanzapine and fluoxetine (but not venlafaxine) at end point: OFC (-14.6) versus olanzapine (-9.4, P<.001) versus fluoxetine (-10.7, P=.006) versus venlafaxine (-14.7, P=.98). The OFC had a safety profile comparable to its component monotherapies (i.e., olanzapine and fluoxetine), showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect, and was effective in this TRD sample. At the study end point, OFC, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, and low-dose OFC all appeared to be similarly effective.

Objective: Minor depressive disorder is both common and associated with significant psychosocial impairment. This study examined antidepressant treatment efficacy in a large group of patients with minor depressive disorder., Method: One hundred sixty-two patients with minor depressive disorder were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine or placebo in a 12-week, double-blind study; 73% (59 of 81) of the patients in each treatment group completed the study. Patients were evaluated weekly with standard depression rating instruments and measures of psychosocial impairment. Hypotheses were tested by last-observation-carried-forward analysis of variance (ANOVA) and confirmed by mixed (random-effects) regression analysis., Results: At baseline, minor depressive disorder patients were mildly to moderately depressed, with a corresponding degree of functional impairment. Over 12 weeks of treatment, both ANOVA and mixed regression showed fluoxetine to be superior to placebo as indicated by significantly greater improvement of fluoxetine-treated patients in scores on the 30-item clinician-rated Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, the 17-item and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Clinical Global Impression severity scale. Improvement in Global Assessment of Functioning Scale score was significantly greater for the fluoxetine group in mixed regression analysis only. Patients in both treatment groups reported a similar number and severity of adverse events during the 12-week treatment period., Conclusions: Clinicians frequently encounter minor depressive disorder either as a prodromal or residual phase of illness in major depressive disorder or as de novo minor depressive disorder episodes. Fluoxetine is significantly superior to placebo in reducing minor depressive disorder symptoms within a 12-week period. Improvement in psychosocial function with fluoxetine may take longer than 12 weeks.

Objective: Treatment-resistant depression is a significant public health concern; drug switching or augmentation often produce limited results. The authors hypothesized that fluoxetine could be augmented with olanzapine to successfully treat resistant depression., Method: An 8-week double-blind study was conducted with 28 patients who were diagnosed with recurrent, nonbipolar, treatment-resistant depression without psychotic features. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: olanzapine plus placebo, fluoxetine plus placebo, or olanzapine plus fluoxetine., Results: Fluoxetine monotherapy produced minimal improvement on various scales that rate severity of depression. The benefits of olanzapine monotherapy were modest. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine produced significantly greater improvement than either monotherapy on one measure and significantly greater improvement than olanzapine monotherapy on the other measures after 1 week. There were no significant differences between treatment groups on extrapyramidal measures nor significant adverse drug interactions., Conclusions: Olanzapine plus fluoxetine demonstrated superior efficacy for treating resistant depression compared to either agent alone.

To understand the mechanism of the clinical efficacy of olanzapine and fluoxetine combination therapy for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), we studied the effects of olanzapine and other antipsychotics in combination with the selective serotonin uptake inhibitors fluoxetine or sertraline on neurotransmitter release in rat prefrontal cortex (PFC) using microdialysis. The combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine produced robust, sustained increases of extracellular levels of dopamine ([DA](ex)) and norepinephrine ([NE](ex)) up to 361 +/- 28% and 272 +/- 16% of the baseline, respectively, which were significantly greater than either drug alone. This combination produced a slightly smaller increase of serotonin ([5-HT](ex)) than fluoxetine alone. The combination of clozapine or risperidone with fluoxetine produced less robust and persistent increases of [DA](ex) and [NE](ex). The combination of haloperidol or MDL 100907 with fluoxetine did not increase the monoamines more than fluoxetine alone. Olanzapine plus sertraline combination increased only [DA](ex). Therefore, the large, sustained increase of [DA](ex), [NE](ex), and [5-HT](ex) in PFC after olanzapine-fluoxetine treatment was unique and may contribute to the profound antidepressive effect of the olanzapine and fluoxetine therapy in TRD.

Background: Previous meta-analyses of fluoxetine as an antidepressant have many methodological problems, including diagnosis of major depression, validity of outcome measures and lack of intention-to-treat analyses., Aims: To provide an estimate of the effect of fluoxetine compared with placebo and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and to investigate reasons for early discontinuation from acute treatment., Method: Randomised trials were analysed using both intention-to-treat, efficacy and end-point., Results: Fluoxetine was superior to placebo but effect size was low. In trials comparing fluoxetine v. TCA, the results for all trials and for the USA trials showed a trend in favour of fluoxetine. Those for the non-USA trials showed a trend in favour of TCA. When combined, the results showed that significantly fewer patients on fluoxetine discontinued treatment because of adverse events., Conclusion: Fluoxetine is superior to placebo, irrespective of the analytical approach use, whereas the results obtained v. TCAs depend on the approach used. Hence, the results should be interpreted in this light.

Background: Data concerning appropriate treatment in panic disorder following an initial response to acute therapy are limited., Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of continued fluoxetine treatment following successful acute therapy of panic disorder., Method: Patients who responded to acute fluoxetine treatment were randomised to 24 weeks of continued fluoxetine or placebo., Results: Fluoxetine responders randomised to continue on their acute-phase fluoxetine dose experienced statistically significant improvement in panic attack frequency and phobia rating scale score over 24 weeks of therapy, while those switched to placebo experienced statistically significant worsening in Hamilton Anxiety (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) and SCL-90-R rating scores., Conclusions: Fluoxetine was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with placebo during continuation therapy.

Objective: Although panic attacks account for only a portion of the morbidity of panic disorder and panic attack frequency assessments are unreliable, studies of drug efficacy in panic disorder have generally used reduction in panic attack frequency as the primary measure of improvement. The authors studied the efficacy of fluoxetine treatment in panic disorder and measured the relative contributions of changes in symptoms to overall improvement., Method: Patients with a diagnosis of panic disorder (N = 243) were randomly assigned to treatment with 10 or 20 mg/day of fluoxetine or placebo. Primary outcome measures were change in panic attack frequency and clinician-rated Clinical Global Impression improvement scores. Other assessments included a panic attack inventory, clinician-rated and patient-rated versions of the Panic and Phobic Disorder Change Scale, a phobia rating scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Sheehan Disability Scale. Correlations were determined between outcomes in individual symptom domains and overall clinical outcome., Results: Fluoxetine, particularly the 20-mg/day dose, was associated with more improvement than was placebo in patients with panic disorder across multiple symptom measures, including global improvement, total panic attack frequency, phobic symptoms, and functional impairment. Global improvement was most highly correlated with reductions in overall anxiety and phobic symptoms and least correlated with reduction in panic attacks. Fluoxetine treatment for panic disorder was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that observed for fluoxetine in other disorders., Conclusions: These data provide support for the efficacy and safety of fluoxetine treatment in reducing panic attacks, phobic symptoms, anxiety, and depressive symptoms in patients with panic disorder. Reductions in panic attack frequency in subjects given either fluoxetine or placebo were less closely related to overall clinical improvement than reductions in phobic avoidance, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and functional impairment, suggesting that outcome measures in this disorder should be more broadly based.

Concomitant use of psychoactive medications is a common practice in most clinical trials of antidepressant medications. However, the relative therapeutic impact of such use on trial results has not been the subject of much attention. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether concomitant use of psychoactive medications confounded the efficacy or safety results of a series of fluoxetine trials. Data were evaluated from 25 randomized, double-blind clinical trials comparing fluoxetine with placebo or a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) in 4,016 patients with major depression. We compared incidence rates of concomitant use of anxiolytics, sedatives, and antipsychotics between treatments. In addition, we compared the change in total score for the 21-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD21): incidence rates of any worsening, emergence, or improvement in psychomotor agitation; and incidence of suicidal acts and any worsening, emergence, or improvement in suicidal ideation between treatment groups among patients taking/not taking a sedative. Anxiolytic and antipsychotic drug use was uncommon (8.3% and 0.9% overall use, respectively) and did not substantially increase over time. Sedative drugs were used most often (29.6% overall), but only 29.8% of the fluoxetine-treated patients took one or more doses. Regarding efficacy, fluoxetine was superior to placebo in decreasing HAMD21 total scores among patients taking/not taking sedatives. Effects on safety were assessed by examining agitation and suicidal ideation. Use of sedatives did not affect the change in the HAMD agitation score; scores were similar in patients receiving fluoxetine, placebo, and TCAs. In all treatment groups, anxiolytic use tended to increase as the HAMD anxiety score increased. Fluoxetine was superior to placebo in treating suicidal ideation, and the concomitant use of sedatives did not influence this effect. Overall, concomitant use of psychotropic medications in the fluoxetine depression clinical trials was uncommon. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the clinical efficacy and safety of fluoxetine were not confounded by the concomitant use of medications.

A peripheral model for the central 5-HT neuron is the characterization of platelet imipramine binding. We studied an outpatient major depressive cohort who fulfilled Research Diagnostic Criteria for agitation. After a 1-week placebo lead-in, subjects were blindly randomized to either imipramine (IMI) or fluoxetine (FLU) during an 8-week, double-blind study period. Thirty-three subjects (15 IMI, 18 FLU) provided both baseline and endpoint samples for the platelet [3H]-IMI assay. Depression efficacy was comparable across the two treatments, whereas FLU was significantly more effective in reducing secondary anxiolysis (p = .023). Discontinuations due to an adverse event were significantly more frequent with IMI than FLU (p < .01). Baseline affinity (KD) was mildly predictive of change in the HAMD (r = -.22; p = .07). Whereas baseline to endpoint density (Bmax) changes (delta) were similar for IMI (183 +/- 329 fmol/mg) and FLU (196 +/- 402 fmol/mg), a statistically significant treatment difference in delta KD emerged (IMI -0.005 +/- 0.010 pmol/ml versus FLU 0.008 +/- 0.013 at p = 004). Moreover, the changes in KD and HAMD17 trended to a positive correlation among only the FLU-treated subjects (4 = 0.406, p = .095). The clinical effects of 5-HT-based selective antidepressant may be reflected by dynamic changes in the platelet 5-HT uptake apparatus. These data suggest that the baseline confirmational status of the [3H]-IMI:5-HT transporter may reflect a "capacity" for a treatment response.

Psychomotor agitation, a common clinical feature of major depression, may first emerge or intensify during pharmacotherapy. Whether agitation is part of the underlying course of depression or iatrogenic complicates treatment planning. We analyzed data from blinded clinical trials involving 4,737 patients with major depression assigned to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (fluoxetine), a comparator antidepressant (usually a tricyclic antidepressant [TCA]), or placebo. Item 9 of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was used to assess the degree of psychomotor agitation. The vast majority of depressed patients exhibited baseline psychomotor agitation. The rate of increased agitation from baseline during acute pharmacotherapy was comparable between fluoxetine and either placebo or TCAs. Substantial emergence of psychomotor agitation also occurred at a similar incidence across the three treatment groups and typically appeared within the first 3 wk. Improvement in agitation was significantly more prominent (P < 0.001) among fluoxetine-treated than among placebo-treated patients. Fluoxetine-treated patients demonstrated numerically superior improvement rates compared with TCA-treated patients; however, this difference was not significant. Data derived from this large series of clinical trials suggested no evidence that either fluoxetine or TCAs induced psychomotor agitation at rates exceeding the natural course of the disorder over time (placebo cohort). On the contrary, pharmacotherapy with either fluoxetine or TCAs was typically associated with diminished agitation, probably as part of the response pattern of depression.

No consensus exists regarding whether early response to an antidepressant strongly predicts a good outcome, what is the criterion for early response, or when to measure it. We hypothesized that early response (> or = 20% decrease in HAM-d21) after any of weeks 1, 2, or 3 of fluoxetine treatment of major depression in geriatric outpatients would predict a favorable outcome by week 6 or an earlier endpoint accurately enough for clinical use. We also hypothesized that the week 1, 2, and 3 percent changes in 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21) would predict the percent change at week 6 (or endpoint) accurately enough for clinical use. We enrolled 671 elderly outpatients with unipolar DSM-III-R major depression in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine, 20 mg/day. For analysis, fluoxetine-treated patients were randomly divided into a development set (N = 154) for a preliminary test of our criteria and a validation set (N = 181) to validate the development data set's results. Early responders at weeks 1, 2, and 3 were statistically significantly more likely to experience marked improvement or remission than those lacking early response. However, at week 3, this criterion correctly classified only about three-fourths of patients with regard to marked improvement and only about two-thirds with regard to remission. Moreover, about one-third of patients predicted to experience marked improvement and about three-fifths of those predicted to remit did not. The continuous variable, percent change in HAM-D21, did not produce predictive results of any greater clinical utility. We believe that the sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate, false-negative rate, and kappa of outcome predictions all should be reported in future studies. Without a full set of descriptive statistics, clinicians can be misled by statistically significant results.

Obesity is a major health care concern because of its associated medical complications and increased mortality. Despite a myriad of short-term weight loss strategies and the motivation of improving health, patients have difficulty maintaining reduced weight. Pharmacologic agents, such as fluoxetine, a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor, have been investigated as adjunctive therapy to standard weight management programs. Extended therapy with fluoxetine has demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits on weight loss and obesity-associated medical conditions in double-blind placebo-controlled studies. However, the magnitude of these benefits for individuals vary. Such findings are consistent with the belief that the obesity syndrome has differing etiologies. Accordingly not all patients are likely to benefit from a particular therapy. Studies should identify patient subgroups that are more likely to respond to a specific therapy. In this study of 719 fluoxetine-treated and 722 placebo treated patients in four multicenter, randomized, double-blind, long-term clinical trials, we investigated possible predictors of a beneficial long-term outcome from fluoxetine therapy. Patients' age, current smoking activity, and baseline uric acid concentration were predictors of a meaningful long-term treatment effect. Further review of the weight loss patterns of patients achieving long-term success provided the basis for a treatment monitor. Use of the predictors and the treatment monitor are strategies to maximize the benefits of therapy through improved patient selection and monitoring during a therapeutic program.

Depression in the geriatric population is a frequent, serious, and potentially reversible disorder, yet relatively few blinded, controlled, antidepressant trials have been reported. A number of age related issues complicate safe and effective pharmacotherapy. In a 6-week, double-blind trial in moderately to severely depressed (nonpsychotic) outpatients over age 60, fluoxetine (N = 335) was statistically significantly more efficacious than placebo (N = 336) in overall response (43.9% vs. 31.6%, p = .002) and remission (31.6% vs. 18.6%, p < .001) rates. Analyses of early discontinuations because of an adverse drug event revealed no statistically significantly greater rate with fluoxetine (n = 39; 11.6) than was seen with placebo (n = 29; 8.6%). These results corroborate that major depression in an older population is responsive to antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Specifically, fluoxetine, at a conventional 20-mg dose, was both safe and effective relative to placebo in this special population.

In a randomized 6-week trial comparing fluoxetine with placebo, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Status Survey (SF-36) scales were used to measure the effects of treatment on functional health and well-being among elderly (age > or = 60 years) outpatients with major depression. In the fluoxetine and placebo groups, 261 and 271 patients, respectively, completed the SF-36 before treatment and at Weeks 3 and 6. Compared with national norms for individuals over age 60, study patients before treatment exhibited baseline decrements on the following SF-36 scales: mental health, role limitations due to emotional problems, social functioning, vitality, role limitations due to physical problems, and bodily pain. Analyses of SF-36 changed scores from baseline to Week 6 revealed that the fluoxetine group improved more than the placebo group across all scales. Differences in changes of scores between groups were significant (p < .05), favoring the fluoxetine group for the scales of mental health, role limitations due to emotional problems, physical functioning, and bodily pain. Improvements observed in the fluoxetine group were both clinically and socially significant.

A common presentation for major depression includes psychomotor agitation. However, this subtype has been the infrequent subject of controlled investigation during depression trials. Yet, the subcategorization of agitated depression has historically been associated with the belief that older, sedating compounds have a superior risk:benefit profile. In the 8-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel trial, 124 subjects with Research Diagnostic Criteria-compatible agitated depression were randomized to either imipramine (IMI) or fluoxetine (FLU). Both compounds proved to be similarly effective as measured by change in HAM-D17, HAM-D17 response, and HAM-D17 remission rates. Similar comparability was seen in secondary measures of agitation, anxiety, suicidality, and global impressions. However, of note, a statistically significant difference in early discontinuations because of intolerable adverse events emerged. Whereas 43.5% of IMI subjects discontinued early, only 9.7% of FLU subjects (p < 0.001) did. Significantly more central nervous system events characterized the IMI than the FLU subgroup (IMI, 24.2%, vs. FLU, 6.5%; p = 0.006). In conclusion, among subjects with major depression, subtype agitated, the risk:benefit profile favored FLU over IMI. This was driven by the superior tolerance of FLU. No evidence emerged in support of the clinical hypothesis that a "sedating" agent is the treatment of choice for this group. The results are important when striving to maximize compliance with pharmacotherapy in order to minimize recidivism and associated psychological and economic morbidity.

The onset of action of antidepressant medications is commonly believed to require three or more weeks based on clinical observation and corollary receptor-based hypotheses. However, this is not congruent with early published observations with the tricyclic antidepressants and has been recently challenged. Time to response has implications for treatment compliance, dose adjustment, patient well-being, and the associated economic costs of depression. Weekly improvement on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD21) from baseline and time to response for fluoxetine- and placebo-treated patients were compared. Data from six double-blind clinical trials of 6-7 weeks' duration, in which 1447 patients with DSM-III-R major depression had been randomly allocated to fluoxetine (n = 962) or placebo (n = 485), were pooled. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate HAMD21 improvement and the Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to evaluate time to response (> or = 50% improvement in HAMD21). Improvement in HAMD21 was statistically significantly greater for fluoxetine than placebo beginning at Week 1 and continuing throughout all weeks of therapy. However, Week 1 and 2 results varied among the individual studies. HAMD factors of cognition and psychomotor status revealed the most rapid changes for fluoxetine-treated compared with placebo-treated patients. The probability of achieving a clinical response, defined as a HAMD21 score reduction from baseline of at least 50%, was similar for both fluoxetine (0.043) and placebo (0.049) at the end of Week 1. However, by Week 2 and thereafter the probability of a response was greater for fluoxetine than placebo.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Recent advances in the pharmacotherapy of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) have led to a significant reduction in suffering and a return to productive living for many patients previously considered refractory to treatment. However, OCD can be a chronic disorder that significantly detracts from an individual's well-being. Potent inhibitors of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) reuptake have emerged as the first-line choice in the pharmacotherapy of OCD. These members of the therapeutic armamentarium for OCD, while associated with acute symptomatic improvement, have not been extensively studied during continuation therapy. In this study, 274 primary OCD subjects completed a 13-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of three fixed doses of fluoxetine. Treatment responders (n = 76) continued their blinded treatment, whereas acute fixed-dose nonresponders began an open-label trial on their maximally tolerated dose (up to 80 mg daily) for 24 weeks. Responders maintained their acute treatment gains; in addition, all three doses of fluoxetine (20, 40, and 60 mg) were associated with further Y-BOCS improvement over the 24-week extension. Fluoxetine 60 mg achieved a statistically significantly greater reduction in Y-BOCS than placebo during the continuation. Open-label study subjects (n = 198) benefited from dose titration, with two thirds achieving a clinical response during the subsequent 24 weeks. Fluoxetine was well tolerated during both 24-week continuation periods. Only 4 (5.7%) of 70 subjects treated with fluoxetine in the responder extension terminated early due to an adverse event. The open-label extension, fluoxetine (to 80 mg), also demonstrated a low rate of adverse events; the profile of events was consistent with the extensive fluoxetine experience in other clinical populations. In conclusion, fluoxetine continuation treatment in OCD was associated with a maintained/improved symptomatic profile in most cases. Further dose titration improved the outcome of many acute, fixed-dose nonresponders. Continuation treatment with fluoxetine appeared to be well tolerated with few late-emergent adverse events.

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of fluoxetine hydrochloride at fixed doses of 20 mg/d, 40 mg/d, and 60 mg/d in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and to evaluate its safety., Methods: Fixed-dose fluoxetine hydrochloride (20 mg/d, 40 mg/d, 60 mg/d) was compared with placebo in two randomized, double-blind, parallel, 13-week trials of identical design in 355 outpatients with OCD aged 15 to 70 years (DSM-III-R criteria; 1 year's duration or longer; depression secondary if present)., Results: Fluoxetine (all doses) was significantly (P < or = .001) superior to placebo on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) total score (mean baseline-to-end-point decrease, 4.6, 5.5, and 6.5 vs 0.9, respectively, studies pooled) and other efficacy measures (P < or = .01). A trend suggesting greater efficacy at 60 mg/d was observed. Most patients (79.2%) completed the study. Eight adverse events were statistically significantly more frequent with fluoxetine and one, with placebo. For some events, incidence tended to increase with increasing dosage; however, few patients discontinued treatment for any single event., Conclusion: Fluoxetine was associated with a statistically significant reduction in OCD severity, including time engaged in obsessional and/or compulsive behaviors. Adverse events infrequently led to study discontinuation.

This study tested the hypothesis that some patients treated with an antidepressant who develop adverse events (e.g., activation, akathisia) experience emergent suicidality specifically associated with such events. Seventeen double-blind, controlled clinical trials conducted in the United States and Canada with 3,065 patients with major depression were evaluated for treatment-emergent adverse events (events that first occurred or worsened during therapy) and suicidality (a suicidal act or emergence of substantial suicidal ideation or both) with fluoxetine, placebo, and tricyclic antidepressants. Nine relevant adverse event clusters were evaluated: activation, sedation, activation and sedation, decreased libido, mania, psychosis, psychosis and mania, acute brain syndrome, and violence. Incidence rates were determined for suicidality that was and was not temporally associated with an adverse event cluster and were analyzed within and across treatments (incidence difference method). Most patients experienced neither a cluster event nor suicidality. Where suicidality was reported, it generally was not in temporal association with an adverse event cluster. In no cluster was the incidence of suicidality statistically significantly higher when reported in temporal association with an event than when not. Suicidality was associated infrequently with treatment-emergent activation and at comparable rates across treatments. No increased risk of suicidality associated with an adverse event cluster was observed between the treatment groups (fluoxetine versus tricyclic anti-depressants; fluoxetine versus placebo). These results from double-blind, placebo- and comparator-controlled fluoxetine clinical trials in patients with major depression do not suggest a relationship between a treatment-emergent adverse event pattern and suicidality in this population.

Fluoxetine (20 mg/day) and placebo were compared in 89 outpatient men and women with major depression with (n = 52) or without (n = 37) DSM-III-R melancholia in an 8-week double-blind study to determine predictors of treatment response. Fluoxetine was statistically superior to placebo both within the melancholic subtype and in the total patient group (all measures). Response rate and mean decrease in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score approached statistical significance in favor of fluoxetine-treated melancholic patients compared with fluoxetine-treated non-melancholic patients. There were no statistically significant differences between fluoxetine-treated and placebo-treated non-melancholic patients. Results support DSM-III-R melancholia as a predictor of antidepressant response.

Background: The presence or absence of anxiety has traditionally determined choice of an antidepressant ("activating" or "sedating"); however, there is little scientific support for the construct. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether comorbid anxiety affected efficacy or predisposed patients to specific adverse events., Method: Data were evaluated from 19 randomized, double-blind clinical trials comparing fluoxetine with placebo or a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) or both in 3,183 patients with major depression (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference, analysis of variance, and Pearson's chi-square methods). On the basis of the anxiety/somatization factor within the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21), patients were characterized as anxious (score > or = 7) or nonanxious (score < 7)., Results: Fluoxetine was significantly (p < or = .05) more effective than placebo in treating both anxious and nonanxious major depression (mean improvement in HAM-D21 total score, 11.0 versus 8.1 and 8.1 versus 5.5, respectively). Fluoxetine was also statistically significantly more effective than placebo in reducing the HAM-D21 anxiety/somatization factor score (anxious, all patients). The efficacy of fluoxetine and TCAs was comparable (all measures, all groups). Discontinuations for adverse events were statistically significantly higher with fluoxetine than placebo (anxious, 15.2% versus 3.8%; nonanxious, 13.2% versus 6.7%) and with TCAs than fluoxetine (anxious, 28.9% versus 15.5%; nonanxious, 34.1% versus 19.0%). Among events suggestive of "activation" or "sedation," incidence rates ranged from 0.0% to 32.9%; discontinuation rates were low (0.0% to 4.1%), except for somnolence with TCAs (9.4% to 13.2%)., Conclusion: Anxiety in major depression does not appear to affect response to an antidepressant. Therefore, antidepressant selection should be determined by an agent's overall risk:benefit ratio, not the presence or absence of anxiety.

Major depression during later life represents a clinical challenge. Conventional antidepressant pharmacotherapy is relatively less well tolerated in geriatric patients compared with younger patients. Despite the striking impairments associated with this disorder, clinical investigations into the relative risk-benefit ratio of various depression treatment strategies have been limited. In this multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial with fluoxetine, 671 major depressed (DSM-III-R-compatible) outpatients aged 60 years or older were evaluated. The 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD21) response (p = 0.014) and remission (p = 0.008) criteria favoured fluoxetine over placebo. Analysis of the treatment effect on change in the HAMD21 factors (anxiety/somatization, cognitive disturbance, psychomotor retardation, and sleep disturbance) revealed advantages for fluoxetine within the cognitive disturbance and psychomotor retardation factors. Overall, the rate of discontinuation for an adverse event between fluoxetine (11.6%) and placebo (8.6%) was not statistically significant. Baseline HAMD21 factor scores were not predictive of adverse events leading to premature treatment discontinuation. Fluoxetine, 20 mg/day, is a well-tolerated and effective treatment option in the management of geriatric major depression.

Psychological distress is a driver both of direct and indirect health care costs. Depression compromises functional well-being, such as work productivity. Comorbid anxious features often complicate the recognition of depression and may herald a poor prognosis. We report the results of a cross-sectional naturalistic study to determine the impact of three interventions (no antidepressant, fluoxetine, or tricyclic antidepressant therapy) on relative risk of work days lost in 454 French outpatients with either major or minor depression. Most depressed patients also manifested anxious features (76% with a Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score > or = 12). The presence of anxiety was related to the severity of depression, work absenteeism, and current social instability. Depression severity (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score > or = 26, including the contributions of anxious symptoms), psychiatric comorbidity, and psychomotor retardation best predicted continued work absenteeism. Patients with major depression were more likely to receive an antidepressant if they had a past history of depressive episodes and/or previous work disability. Patients with minor depression were less likely to receive drug therapy than patients with major depression, despite their current work disability. Among patients who received fluoxetine or a tricyclic antidepressant for at least 8 weeks, fluoxetine was associated with statistically significantly lower mean anxiety and depression scores and fewer work days missed.

Recent epidemiological data have shown that obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) has a lifetime prevalence of 2.5-3.0%. Compounds having an effect on serotonergic neurotransmission have demonstrated a reproducible therapeutic effect in OCD. Most recent attention has been focused on the specific serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) class of compounds. The pooled data from two recently completed placebo-controlled studies of the SSRI, fluoxetine, have demonstrated clear evidence of a clinically valuable therapeutic effect in patients with OCD. Combined efficacy and safety data suggest that fluoxetine, 20 mg/day, will be effective in many patients. The therapeutic response emerges slowly and increases gradually. Data from extension studies suggest that, in some patients, an optimal response may only be achieved with higher daily doses of fluoxetine. Clinical response has been shown to be sustained over periods of 9 months of treatment and following withdrawal in an open-label trial. Fluoxetine is safe and well tolerated in this group of patients.

Double-blind, controlled clinical trial data were evaluated to assess a hypothetical relationship between fluoxetine and suicidality (suicidal acts and ideation) in patients with mood (n = 5,655) and nonmood disorders (n = 4,959) (Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference method). In mood disorders, act rates (suicide attempts/completions) were low (treatment differences nonsignificant). Substantial suicidal ideation emerged less frequently with fluoxetine than placebo and was comparable with fluoxetine and tricyclic antidepressants. Improvement in ideation was greater with fluoxetine than placebo; it was comparable with fluoxetine and tricyclic antidepressants (United States trials) and greater with tricyclic antidepressants than fluoxetine (international trials). In nonmood disorders, no suicides occurred. Act and emergent ideation rates were low (treatment differences nonsignificant). Results do not suggest a causal relationship between pharmacotherapy and emergence of suicidality. Fluoxetine or tricyclic antidepressants reduce suicidal ideation and may protect against the emergence of substantial suicidal ideation.

As part of a study in which reduced rapid eye movement latency was used to predict treatment response, fluoxetine and placebo were compared in 89 outpatients with major depression with (n = 52) and without (n = 37) DSM-III-R melancholia, to determine whether the presence or absence of melancholia predicted antidepressant and/or placebo response. Following a 2-week, single-blind placebo lead-in, men and women were assigned by random allocation to double-blind fluoxetine, 20 mg/day, or placebo for 8 weeks. Fluoxetine was statistically significantly superior to placebo in patients with melancholia (endpoint change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score, response rates and remission rates). A weekly analysis demonstrated statistical superiority of fluoxetine compared with placebo at week 3 and continuing for the remainder of the study. Fluoxetine was statistically significantly more likely to reduce suicidal ideation compared with placebo, using the MADRS item 10 (suicidal ideation question).