Search

Objective: To compare the efficacy of plasma level-targeted dose imipramine and high-dose venlafaxine in depressed inpatients in a randomized double-blind study., Methods: The study included 85 patients with a diagnosis of major depressive episode according to the DSM IV criteria and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score ≥ 17. Patients were randomized to imipramine or venlafaxine. The dose of imipramine was adjusted for each patient to a predefined blood level of 200-300 ng/ml. The dose of venlafaxine was increased gradually to 300-375 mg/day. Efficacy was evaluated after 7 weeks of treatment., Results: The mean age of the study group was 54.5 (range 29-82) years. There was no significant difference according to the primary outcome criterion of a ≥50% reduction on the HAM-D score: 17 of 43 (39.5%) patients on imipramine were responders compared to 21 of 42 (50%) patients on venlafaxine. When considering remission as outcome criterion (HAM-D score ≤ 7), 10 of 43 (23.3%) patients on imipramine were remitters compared to 15 of 42 (35.7%) patients on venlafaxine; again, no significant difference. When analysing a subpopulation of patients without psychotic features, with remission as outcome criterion, a significant difference was found: 5 of 34 (14.7%) patients on imipramine were remitters compared to 12 of 31 (38.7%) patients on venlafaxine., Conclusions: The present study used optimal doses in depressed inpatients and showed that venlafaxine is at least equal in efficacy to imipramine. The results in the subgroup without psychotic features indicate a possible superiority of venlafaxine., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

CYP2C19 converts the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine to its active metabolite desipramine, which is subsequently inactivated by CYP2D6. The novel CYP2C19*17 allele causes ultrarapid metabolism of CYP2C19 substrates. We genotyped 178 depressed patients on imipramine for CYP2C19*17, and measured steady-state imipramine and desipramine plasma concentrations. Mean dose-corrected imipramine plasma concentration was significantly dependent on CYP2C19 genotype (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.01), with circa 30% lower levels in CYP2C19*17/*17 individuals compared with CYP2C19*1/*1 (wild-type) patients. The mean dose-corrected imipramine+desipramine plasma concentrations and imipramine/desipramine ratios were not significantly different between genotype subgroups (Kruskal-Wallis tests, P>or=0.12). In a multivariate analysis, we found a significant, but limited effect (P=0.035, eta(2)=0.031) of the CYP2C19*17 genotype on imipramine+desipramine concentrations. Although the CYP2C19*17 allele is associated with a significantly increased metabolism of imipramine, CYP2C19*17 genotyping will, in our view, not importantly contribute to dose management of patients on imipramine therapy guided by imipramine+desipramine plasma concentrations.

Background: Data about follow-up after acute pharmacological treatment of psychotic depression are scarce., Methods: A 4 month open follow-up was done, preferentially with same medication as during acute treatment, of patients (n=59) with DSM-IV-TR major depressive disorder with psychotic features, aged 18 to 65 years, who had completed as responders an acute double-blind 7 week trial with imipramine, venlafaxine or venlafaxine plus quetiapine. Main outcome measures were Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Clinical Global Impression Scale., Results: Six patients dropped out during the 4 month follow-up. Almost all patients (86.4%; 51/59) remained responder while remission rate increased from 59.3% (35/59) to 86.8% (46/53), independent of treatment. Relapse rate was low (3.8%; 2/53). Tolerability was good. Weight increased with all treatments., Limitations: Limitations were the limited sample size and consequent limited statistical power. The treatment during follow-up was not double-blind., Conclusions: Continuation treatment with the same medication that was effective in the acute treatment trial, remained effective during the 4 month follow-up in many patients leading to further improvement, and was well tolerated., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: It remains unclear whether unipolar psychotic depression should be treated with an antidepressant and an antipsychotic or with an antidepressant alone., Method: In a multi-center RCT, 122 patients (18-65 years) with DSM-IV-TR psychotic major depression and HAM-D-17 > or = 18 were randomized to 7 weeks imipramine (plasma-levels 200-300 microg/l), venlafaxine (375 mg/day) or venlafaxine-quetiapine (375 mg/day, 600 mg/day). Primary outcome was response on HAM-D-17. Secondary outcomes were response on CGI and remission (HAM-D-17)., Results: Venlafaxine-quetiapine was more effective than venlafaxine with no significant differences between venlafaxine-quetiapine and imipramine, or between imipramine and venlafaxine. Secondary outcomes followed the same pattern., Conclusion: That unipolar psychotic depression should be treated with a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic and not with an antidepressant alone, can be considered evidence based with regard to venlafaxine-quetiapine vs. venlafaxine monotherapy. Whether this is also the case for imipramine monotherapy is likely, but cannot be concluded from the data.

The inactivation and clearance of the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine is dependent on CYP2D6 activity. First, CYP2C19 converts imipramine into the active metabolite desipramine, which is then inactivated by CYP2D6. This retrospective single center study aimed to prove whether CYP2C19 and ample CYP2D6 genotyping (taking into consideration four null alleles and three decreased-activity alleles) could be used to predict imipramine and desipramine plasma concentrations in depressed patients, and whether genotype-based drug dose recommendations might assist in the early management of imipramine pharmacotherapy. In 181 subjects with major depressive disorder, drug doses were recorded, imipramine and desipramine plasma concentrations were monitored and CYP2C19 (*2) and CYP2D6 genotype (*3, *4, *5, *6, *9, *10, *41 and gene duplication) were obtained, yielding graded allele-specific CYP2D6 patient groups. Desipramine and imipramine+desipramine plasma concentration per drug dose unit, imipramine dose at steady state, and imipramine dose requirement significantly depended on CYP2D6 genotype (Kruskal-Wallis test, P<0.0001). Mean (+/-s.d.) drug dose requirements were 131 (+/-109), 155 (+/-70), 217 (+/-95), 245 (+/-125), 326 (+/-213), and 509 (+/-292) mg imipramine/day in carriers of 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and >2 active CYP2D6 genes, respectively. Our protocol for CYP2D6 genotyping will thus importantly aid in the prediction of imipramine metabolism, allowing for the use of an adjusted starting dose and faster achievement of predefined imipramine+desipramine plasma levels in all genetic patient subgroups. Therefore, therapeutic efficacy and efficiency may be improved, the number of adverse drug reactions decreased, and hospital stay reduced.

The purpose of the present study is to compare the efficacy of imipramine in the treatment of psychotic versus nonpsychotic depression. Previous studies report varying results of monotherapy with antidepressants in psychotic depression. Because psychotic depression is seriously underinvestigated, performing a post hoc analysis of randomized clinical trials consisting of both psychotic and nonpsychotic depressed patients may contribute to the discussion on the optimal treatment of depressed patients with mood-congruent psychotic features. A total of 112 patients diagnosed with major depression (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) (40 with psychotic depression and 82 without psychotic features) received treatment with imipramine for 6 weeks after a washout period of 7 days. Imipramine doses were adjusted to attain a predefined fixed plasma level. Treatment response was assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). A logistic regression analysis showed a significantly larger reduction in HAM-D score in the sample with psychotic features compared with the nonpsychotic sample (regression coefficient, -3.47; SE, 1.7; P = 0.04). According to the primary outcome criterion, that is, the change in HAM-D score, imipramine was significantly more effective in the sample with psychotic depression compared with the nonpsychotic depressed patients. The contradiction between our results and those of several previous studies may be due to the fixed plasma level dosing of imipramine refraining from concurrent psychotropic medication or limiting our patient sample to patients with mood-congruent psychotic features.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of imipramine versus placebo in preventing relapse after successful electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in depressive inpatients with pharmacotherapy treatment failure prior to ECT., Method: During a 6-month period, the incidence of relapse was assessed. Two centers, both inpatient units for treatment of depressed patients, participated in this trial. Patients with DSM-IV-diagnosed major depressive disorder resistant to an anti-depressant and subsequent lithium addition and/or a monoamine oxidase inhibitor were included. Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with imipramine with adequate plasma levels (N=12) or placebo (N=15) after successful ECT. The mean imipramine dosage was 209 mg/day (standard deviation: 91.7, range: 75-325 mg/day). The main outcome measure was relapse defined as at least "moderately worse" compared with baseline score on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale. Treatments were compared with survival analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model, including psychotic features and the score on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) at baseline as prespecified covariables. Patients were enrolled in the study from April 1997 to July 2001., Results: In the placebo group, 80% (12/15) of the patients relapsed compared with 18% (2/11) in the imipramine group. The Cox regression analysis showed a significant reduction in the risk of relapse of 85.6% with imipramine compared to placebo (p=.007; 95% confidence interval [CI]=24.6% to 97.2%) adjusted for the covariables. There was an 18% increase in the relapse rate (p=.032; 95% CI=2% to 36%) per unit increase in HAM-D score before the start of the trial; psychotic features had no significant effect (p=.794)., Conclusions: Depressed patients with pharmacotherapy treatment failure may benefit from the prophylactic effect of the same class of drug during maintenance therapy after response to ECT.

Background: There is still uncertainty regarding the best treatment optionfor depressed inpatients and the best strategy to follow if patient response is insufficient., Aim: To compare the efficacy of imipramine and fluvoxamine in depressed inpatients who subsequently received lithium supplement in case of poor response., Method: After a drug-free period and four days of placebo use, patients were randomised either to imipramine or to fluvoxamine (phase 1); the antidepressant dosage was fixed according to a predetermined plasma level. The efficacy of the antidepressant was evaluated four weeks after the predetermined plasma level had been attained. If patient response was inadequate, the antidepressant was augmented with lithium (phase 2). Patient response to the lithium addition was evaluated three weeks after an adequate lithium level had been attained., Results: The study involved 138 inpatients. At the end of phase 1, imipramine was found to be superior tofluvoxamine according to the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement. Remission was achieved by 6 (23%) patients on imipramine and by 10 (15%) patients on fluvoxamine; this difference was not statistically significant. At the end of phase 2, 41 (9%) patients on imipramine and 27 (40%) patients on fluvoxamine achieved remission, this significant difference demonstrating the superiority of the imipramine strategy., Conclusion: Imipramine with subsequent lithium addition is superior to a similar strategy with fluvoxamine.

Rationale: Imipramine has often been used as positive control in studies investigating the efficacy of new antidepressants. Imipramine-controlled studies in general employ a fixed-dose design. It is unclear how many patients would achieve effective plasma levels with such a design., Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess the range of doses necessary to attain a therapeutic plasma level in the imipramine arms of two double-blind, fixed-plasma-level studies and to compare them with doses administered in efficacy studies with imipramine as a positive control., Method: During two double-blind studies, imipramine doses were adjusted to a predefined fixed plasma level. Here we report an analysis of the range of doses necessary to attain that level in the imipramine arms of the studies. We also computed the cumulative percentage of patients with therapeutic plasma levels (> or = 200 ng/ml) at various imipramine doses in order to compare them with doses administered in efficacy studies with imipramine as a positive control., Results: Target plasma levels were attained with a mean daily dose of 248 mg, with a dose range of 50-450 mg. We calculated a possible increase in efficacy of imipramine of about 20% if doses had been adjusted to therapeutic plasma levels in clinical trials using it as a positive control., Conclusions: The absence of significant differences in efficacy between selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and imipramine in these trials is at least in part due to improper dosing of the latter; imipramine with therapeutic drug monitoring may be more effective than SSRIs.

Objective: This study was designed to compare the efficacy of two two-phase pharmacological treatment strategies for inpatients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder., Method: During phase I, patients participated in a double-blind study of the effects of imipramine versus fluvoxamine, with final evaluation of response 4 weeks after patients attained the target plasma level. In phase II, for patients without treatment response or with partial response in phase I, lithium was added to imipramine or fluvoxamine. Final evaluation of response was made 3 weeks after the patients attained the target plasma level of lithium (0.6-1.0 mmol/liter)., Results: One hundred thirty-eight patients were enrolled in the study. At the end of phase I, remission, defined as a final Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score < or =7, was achieved by 16 (23%) of 70 imipramine-treated patients and 10 (15%) of 68 fluvoxamine-treated patients. At the end of phase II, 41 (59%) of 70 imipramine-treated patients versus 27 (40%) of 68 fluvoxamine-treated patients qualified for remission, a significant difference in favor of the imipramine strategy. Only a small minority of both groups received concomitant medication. In both phase I and phase II, the discontinuation rate was low (5% and 10%, respectively)., Conclusions: Imipramine with subsequent lithium addition is superior to a similar strategy with fluvoxamine for treatment of severely depressed inpatients. Both strategies were well tolerated.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of imipramine and fluvoxamine in inpatients from two centers suffering from a depressive disorder according to DSM IV criteria., Methods: The study included 141 patients with a depressive disorder according to DSM IV criteria. After a drug-free and placebo run-in period of 1 week, patients were randomized to imipramine or fluvoxamine; doses of both drugs were adjusted to a predefined target blood level. Efficacy was evaluated 4 weeks after attaining predefined adequate plasma level., Results: The mean age of the study group (47 males, 94 females) was 51.8 (range 19-65) years. Of these 141 patients, 56 had episode duration longer than 1 year, 48 had mood congruent psychotic features, and 138 patients received medication. Seven patients did not complete the medication trial. The total number of patients using concurrent medication was 12/138 (8.6%). On the primary outcome criteria patients on imipramine improved significantly better on the change of illness severity score of the CGI (chi2 exact trend test=4.089, df=1, P=-0.048). There was no significant difference in 50% or more reduction on the HRSD, the other primary outcome criterion. On the secondary outcome criteria the mean reduction of the HRSD scores was significantly larger in the imipramine group than in the fluvoxamine group (mean difference=3.1, standard error (SE)=1.4, t=2.15, df=136, P=0.033). There was no significant difference in the number of patients with an HRSD < or =7 at the final evaluation., Conclusions: In depressed inpatients imipramine is more efficacious than fluvoxamine. Both drugs were well tolerated by all patients.

Numerous neuropsychological studies have reported deficits in cognitive and attentional functioning in depressed patients. However, there are limited data available about unmedicated depressed patients and the effects of antidepressant treatment on attentional performance. In this study, a Continuous Performance Test (CPT) was employed to evaluate the attentional performance of depressed inpatients during a drugfree period (n = 52) in comparison to healthy control subjects (n = 73). After 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with imipramine (TCA) or fluvoxamine (SSRI) at adequate plasma levels the CPT performance was studied again. We found that the unmedicated patients had a significantly impaired performance on all CPT parameters (reaction time, omission errors and commission errors) in comparison to the controls. None of the CPT parameters correlated with the severity of the depression or the level of psychomotor retardation. However, the CPT performance in the patient group was significantly related to subjective mood state (depression, tension). Double-blind treatment with imipramine or fluvoxamine resulted in an improvement of the CPT performance. In the imipramine treatment group the mean reaction time decreased significantly, and after treatment with fluvoxamine a significant decrease of the mean reaction time and the number of omission errors was detected. Both antidepressants induced a significant improvement of clinical state, but we did not find a relationship between the altered CPT performance and the changes on the clinical scales. Future studies should investigate other mechanisms underlying the improved attentional performance after treatment., (Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.)

Psychomotor dysfunction in depression is related to alterations in the 24-h pattern of motor activity. After antidepressant treatment the diurnal pattern may be changed due to improvement of clinical state or pharmacological actions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in 52 depressed in-patients the effects of imipramine (tricyclic antidepressant) and fluvoxamine (SSRI) on the 24-h motor activity. Motor activity was monitored by wrist-actigraphy during a medication-free period and after 4 weeks of treatment. Clinical improvement was not different after imipramine or fluvoxamine treatment. The Hamilton depression score decreased in patients treated with imipramine, as well as in patients treated with fluvoxamine. The clinical retardation score was also reduced in both treatment groups. However, patients treated with imipramine showed higher motor activity levels during the wake period in comparison to the medication-free period, and more fragmentation of motor activity during sleep. Treatment with fluvoxamine did not result in alterations in the 24-h pattern of motor activity. The improvement of depressive mood and retardation seems to play a minor role in the change of the pattern of motor activity after imipramine.

Background: Most studies report a poor response of psychotic depressed patients to treatment with a tricyclic antidepressant alone compared to combined treatment with an antipsychotic preparation and compared to non-psychotic depressed patients. However, the issue of optimal treatment of psychotic depressed patients has not been resolved as yet. Previously, we reported a significant difference in response to mirtazapine compared to imipramine in a randomised, double-blind, fixed-blood-level study with in-patients with major depression. In the current study we focus on the treatment response to imipramine in a group of patients with psychotic depression and compare this to patients who manifest no psychotic features. Our aim in presenting these findings was to contribute to the discussion on the optimal treatment of psychotic depressed patients., Methods: Fifty-two patients with a unipolar major depression (DSM-IIIR), comprising 15 patients with mood-congruent psychotic features and 37 patients with no psychotic features, were commenced on treatment with imipramine after a drug-free and placebo-washout period of 7 days. The dose of imipramine was adjusted for all patients to a predetermined blood level. The Hamilton (HRSD) and Montgomery-Asberg (MADRS) Depression Rating Scales were used to evaluate treatment response., Results: Of the 45 patients who completed the study, nine of the 13 psychotic patients (69.2%) and 14 of the 32 non-psychotic patients (43.8%) responded to treatment. The patients with psychotic features demonstrated a lower mean final HRSD score, together with a greater fall in MADRS score over time, compared to the non-psychotic group. Both these findings remained statistically significant after controlling for a number of possible confounding factors., Conclusions: These results demonstrate that, in this group of patients with mood-congruent psychotic depression, imipramine used on its own together with strict control of serum drug levels produced a high treatment response rate of 70%., Clinical Implications: If replicated, these findings suggest that imipramine with control of blood levels of medication may be a useful first-line treatment for depressed patients with mood-congruent psychotic features., Limitations: Our sample size was modest. This fact may caution against generalisation of the results.

Tricyclic antidepressants and more recent antidepressants are generally considered to have equivalent efficacy in the treatment of depression. After a previous report of a marked difference in the response to mirtazapine compared to imipramine, we report here an analysis of different symptom clusters. One hundred seven consecutive in-patients with major depression (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III-R, DSM-III-R) and a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRS-D) score of 18 points or more were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment. Two and four weeks after predefined blood levels had been obtained, the severity of depression was assessed using the HRS-D. The mean dosages used were 235 mg/day of imipramine and 77 mg/day of mirtazapine, the latter being in excess of the 15-45 mg/day range currently advised. Total HRS-D scores and seven symptom clusters were analyzed in the 85 patients (79%) who were not receiving any co-medication. Imipramine was more effective against the clusters related to core symptoms of depression: "depression and guilt", "retardation", and "melancholia", respectively. Mirtazapine showed a biphasic response with regard to the clusters "sleep" and "anxiety/agitation", respectively, which consisted of a marked response after two weeks of predefined blood level, but with a waning of this effect at four weeks. Imipramine produced a more gradual response on these clusters, which was more pronounced at four weeks than with mirtazapine. Two aspects of the present study could be related to this finding: blood level control resulted in optimal treatment with imipramine but not mirtazapine, and - most importantly - the patients were not receiving any anxiolytic or hypnotic co-medication. These findings suggest that mirtazapine may have anxiolytic and sedative properties and fewer antidepressant properties than imipramine in severely depressed in-patients.

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the overall effectiveness of 2 treatment strategies for inpatients with severe major depressive episode (DSM-III-R): (1) mirtazapine (phase 1) and subsequent lithium addition (phase 2) or (2) imipramine (phase 1) and subsequent lithium addition (phase 2). We previously reported the results of phase 1., Method: In phase 1, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with either mirtazapine or imipramine, and doses were adjusted to obtain predefined blood drug levels. Nonresponders had lithium added to the double-blind mirtazapine or imipramine medication. The dose was adjusted to obtain a blood lithium level of 0.5-1.0 mmol/L. Treatment effects were evaluated weekly by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale for up to 2 weeks on this blood lithium level., Results: Data for 100 patients were available for comparison of the 2 treatment strategies. 80 patients received no comedication. By the end of phase 2, 24 (48%) of 50 had responded to mirtazapine and 32 (64%) of 50 had responded to imipramine (intent-to-treat analysis). A survival analysis of the total patient group intent-to-treat showed a significant difference in favor of the treatment strategy with imipramine and subsequent lithium addition., Conclusion: Efficacy of imipramine and subsequent lithium addition for nonresponders is superior to the same treatment strategy with mirtazapine. This applies to the patient sample studied, which consisted of 100 severely depressed inpatients, 29 of whom were psychotically depressed. More serious side effects of imipramine, however, led to discontinuation of imipramine in 5 patients. No serious side effects were observed during the phase of lithium addition to either imipramine or mirtazapine. We, therefore, prefer to start treatment with imipramine and test for fixed blood drug levels, and, if necessary, add lithium. In the case of prohibitive side effects, patients are switched to a modern antidepressant such as mirtazapine, and, if necessary, lithium is added to this antidepressant.

Antidepressant effects of mirtazapine and imipramine were compared in a randomized, double blind, fixed blood-levels study with in-patients in a single centre. Patients with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of major depression and a Hamilton (17-item) score of > or = 18 were selected. After a drug-free and a placebo-washout period of 7 days in total, 107 patients still fulfilling the HRSD criterion of > or = 18, started on active treatment. The dose was adjusted to a predefined fixed blood level to avoid suboptimal dosing of imipramine. Concomitant psychotropic medication was administered only in a few cases because of intolerable anxiety or intolerable psychotic symptoms. Eight patients dropped out and two were excluded from analyses because of non-compliance; 97 completed the study. According to the main response criterion (50% or more reduction on the HRSD score) 11/51 (21.6%) patients responded on mirtazapine and 23/46 (50%) on imipramine after 4 weeks' treatment on the predefined blood level. Such a dramatic difference in efficacy between antidepressants has not often been reported before. The selection of (severely ill) in-patients, including those with suicidal or psychotic features, may have significance in this respect. Optimization of treatment with the reference drug imipramine through blood level control, exclusion of non-compliance for both drugs, exclusion of most concomitant medication and a low drop-out rate may also have contributed. It is concluded that imipramine is superior to mirtazapine in the patient population studied.

Spectral analysis of fluctuations in heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) was applied to assess sympathetic and parasympathetic cardiovascular control mechanisms in patients with unipolar affective disorder before and after treatment with imipramine (IMI) or mirtazapine (MIR). In a double-blind randomized study, 10 patients received treatment with IMI and 10 patients received treatment with MIR. Cardiovascular parameters were studied before and after 4 weeks of treatment: HR and BP (Finapres) were recorded continuously during supine rest (SR) and orthostatic challenge (OC; 60-degrees head-up tilting). During SR and OC, power spectra were calculated for HR and systolic BP. Spectral density was assessed for three frequency bands: low (0.02-0.06 Hz), mid (0.07-0.14 Hz), and high (0.15-0.50 Hz). Before treatment, the depressed patients (N = 20) differed from age-matched controls (N = 20) only in their response to OC: the depressed patients showed more suppression of HR variability (both mid- and high-frequency band fluctuations), indicating stronger vagal inhibition, and a reduced increase of BP variability (mid-frequency band fluctuations), indicating reduced sympathetic activation. After 4 weeks of treatment, patients treated with either antidepressant drug showed significant changes of HR (increase) and HR variability (decrease) during SR and OC; the suppression of mid- and high-frequency fluctuations of HR was larger for IMI than for MIR. The increase in HR and decrease in HR variability may be attributed to the anticholinergic properties of IMI (strong) and MIR (weak), resulting in cardiac vagal inhibition. Whereas MIR had no effect on BP or BP variability, IMI specifically reduced mid-frequency band fluctuations of BP as the result of a suppression of central sympathetic activity. Our data confirm and extend previous observations on the presence of autonomic dysfunctions in unmedicated depressed patients: spectral analysis of HR and BP fluctuations suggested that both parasympathetic and sympathetic mechanisms are involved, specifically during OC. The preexisting autonomic cardiovascular dysfunctions were not normalized by antidepressant drugs. In fact, some of the components of the cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction were further aggravated, depending on the pharmacologic profile of the drug under investigation.

Two women, aged 51 and 65 years, with tricyclic-resistant depression (DSM-III-R) were treated with lithium addition. This is a valuable therapeutic alternative. Interactions and side effects should be closely monitored. Treatment response is possible in a short period of time (1 week), but recovery after lithium addition may also take a few weeks. It is not yet clear which patients will respond to lithium addition and in what way, and which will not. It is advisable to use lithium addition with adequate plasma lithium levels.