Search

Objective. Rapid dose escalation of quetiapine could offer prompt and effective therapy to patients requiring hospitalization for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. This study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of a rapid dose escalation of quetiapine to 800 mg/day over 4 days in patients with severe psychotic symptoms diagnosed as schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Methods. In this open-label, multicenter, pilot study, 14 patients aged 18 years or older, requiring hospitalization for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, received quetiapine orally twice daily for 14 days. Quetiapine was administered according to the schedule: 200, 400, 600, and 800 mg/day on the first four treatment days, followed by flexible dosing within the range 400-800 mg/day during the next 10 days. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of a fast titration of quetiapine (200, 400, 600, 800 mg/day on the first four treatment days). Effectiveness of a fast titration of quetiapine was the secondary objective of this investigation. Efficacy assessments in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population included changes in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scores from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 14. Results. In 4 days 14 patients were titrated up to a dose of 800 mg/day. Ten patients were diagnosed with schizophrenia, one subject was suffering from schizoaffective disorder of the depressive type and three patients were diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder of the bipolar type. Eleven patients (79%) completed the study. Two patients discontinued the trial because of non-compliance and one patient because of a prolonged QTcB interval. Overall, 29 AEs were reported during this trial, all were considered mild or moderate in severity. During the first 7 days of the trial, 25 AEs were reported in 11 patients. The majority of AEs were considered as possibly related to the study medication. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported. Physical examination at the last trial visit revealed no clinically relevant changes versus baseline and there were no consistent changes over time in vital signs. The BARS and SAS scores indicated an improvement of EPS during the study. After 4 days of fast titration, the mean total PANSS score decreased from 92.8 at baseline to a value of 87.4, there was a further decrease to 78.2 at endpoint. This corresponds to a statistically significant decrease by 14.6 versus baseline (P<0.01). After 4 days of fast titration, the mean CGI-S score was improved from 4.7 at baseline to a value of 4.3 and improved further to 3.8 at endpoint, corresponding to a statistically significant decrease of 0.9 points versus baseline (P<0.01). Conclusion. In this study, fast titration of quetiapine to 800 mg/day over 4 days was generally well tolerated and effective in reducing psychotic symptoms in patients requiring hospitalization for schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder.

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

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

Adinazolam, a triazolobenzodiazepine that has an action similar to antidepressants in several pharmacological tests, was compared with amitriptyline and diazepam in endogenous depressive inpatients exhibiting dexamethasone suppression test non-suppression and/or abnormal contingent negative variation. Three parallel groups of 22 patients received in double-blind conditions either adinazolam (60-90 mg/day), amitriptyline (150-225 mg/day), or diazepam (30-45 mg/day) over a 4-week period, with weekly assessments by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Results showed significant superiority of amitriptyline over diazepam on total Hamilton depression scores. On the endogenomorphy subscale, amitriptyline induced significantly better improvement than both diazepam and adinazolam, whereas both amitriptyline and adinazolam exhibited significantly better antidepressant efficacy on the core symptoms of depression. Moreover, the dropout rate for inefficacy after 2 weeks of treatment was higher in the diazepam group. Taken together, these findings suggest that adinazolam has an antidepressant efficacy intermediate between amitriptyline and diazepam. Adinazolam was, however, much better tolerated than amitriptyline, and produced significantly fewer anticholinergic side effects.

A multicenter controlled study was designed to test the hypothesis that a loading dose of an antidepressant could shorten the latency of its clinical efficacy. Three parallel groups of about 40 endogenous depressive inpatients received either a loading dose of milnacipran (300 mg daily for 2 weeks and 150 mg daily during the 2 following weeks), the standard regimen of milnacipran in severe depression (200 mg daily for 4 weeks), or fluvoxamine (200 mg daily for 4 weeks). The duration of the study was 4 weeks, with assessments at baseline and after 4, 9, 14, 21, and 28 days of therapy by means of Montgomery and Asberg depression scale (MADS), the Hamilton depression scale, the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), and a checklist of symptoms and side-effects. Results showed very similar evolution in the 3 treatment groups. In addition, the level of side-effects did not exhibit significant differences among the treatment groups, except for excitement-nervousness and akathisia which were more frequently reported with fluvoxamine. These results do not support the usefulness of a loading dose of an antidepressant such as milnacipran. They demonstrate however that milnacipran can be given at a 300 mg daily dose from the very first day of treatment with an excellent tolerance.

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

Memory has been tested in senile demented patients with the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. The processus of memorization can be significantly facilitated in acute conditions by lysin-vasopressin, to a lesser degree by piracetam and highly worsened by scopolamine. No effect of physostigmine has been observed.