Double-blind comparison of bupropion sustained release and sertraline in depressed outpatients

BACKGROUND: A sustained-release formulation of bupropion (bupropion SR), developed with an improved pharmacokinetic profile to permit less frequent dosing than the immediate-release form, has not been evaluated in active comparator trials. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of bupropion SR and sertraline. METHOD: Outpatients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder (DSM-IV) received bupropion SR (100-300 mg/day) or sertraline (50-200 mg/day) for 16 weeks. Psychiatric evaluations, including the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), the Clinical Global Impressions scale for Severity of Illness (CGI-S), and for Improvement (CGI-I) were completed, and adverse events were assessed in the clinic periodically throughout treatment. Patients' orgasm function was also assessed. RESULTS: Mean HAM-D, HAM-A, CGI-I, and CGI-S scores improved over the course of treatment in both the bupropion SR group and the sertraline group; no between-group differences were observed on any of the scales. Orgasm dysfunction was significantly (p < .001) more common in sertraline-treated patients compared with bupropion SR-treated patients. The adverse events of nausea, diarrhea, somnolence, and sweating were also experienced more frequently (p < .05) in sertraline-treated patients. No differences were noted between the two treatments for vital signs and weight. CONCLUSION: This double-blind comparison of bupropion SR and sertraline demonstrates that bupropion and sertraline are similarly effective for the treatment of depression. Both compounds were relatively well tolerated, and orgasm dysfunction, nausea, diarrhea, somnolence, and sweating were reported more frequently in sertraline-treated patients.     

Initial and repeat screening for Chlamydia trachomatis during pregnancy

BACKGROUND: We examined the efficacy and safety of three different dosages of venlafaxine hydrochloride (75, 225, and 375 mg/day) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-group study. METHOD: Outpatients, 18 to 65 years old, who met DSM-III criteria for major depression were included (N = 358 randomized; 194 completed). Of the total patients completing the trial, 59%, 56%, 51%, and 51% were in the placebo, 75-mg, 225-mg, and 375-mg groups, respectively. The primary outcome measures were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21) total, HAM-D21 depression item, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total, and Clinical Global Impressions scale. RESULTS: Each dosage of venlafaxine was associated with statistically significant improvement as compared with placebo, based on the intent-to-treat sample. The two higher dosages were associated with a modestly greater antidepressant response than was the 75-mg dosage. Nausea, dizziness, somnolence, and anorexia were the most common adverse events attributable to venlafaxine. Since headache occurred at a similar frequency in both the drug and placebo groups, we did not consider it to be attributable to venlafaxine use. Withdrawal from the study due to adverse events occurred in 5%, 17%, 24%, and 30% of the patients in the placebo, 75-mg, 225-mg, and 375-mg groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Venlafaxine, at dosages of 75-375 mg/day, is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant. With increasing dosage, greater efficacy and possibly more adverse effects will occur.     

A comparison of sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Trials of antidepressant medications for smoking cessation have had mixed results. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a sustained-release form of bupropion for smoking cessation. We excluded smokers with current depression, but not those with a history of major depression. The 615 subjects were randomly assigned to receive placebo or bupropion at a dose of 100, 150, or 300 mg per day for seven weeks. The target quitting date (or "target quit date") was one week after the beginning of treatment. Brief counseling was provided at base line, weekly during treatment, and at 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. Self-reported abstinence was confirmed by a carbon monoxide concentration in expired air of 10 ppm or less. RESULTS: At the end of seven weeks of treatment, the rates of smoking cessation as confirmed by carbon monoxide measurements were 19.0 percent in the placebo group, 28.8 percent in the 100-mg group, 38.6 percent in the 150-mg group, and 44.2 percent in the 300-mg group (P<0.001). At one year the respective rates were 12.4 percent, 19.6 percent, 22.9 percent, and 23.1 percent. The rates for the 150-mg group (P=0.02) and the 300-mg group (P=0.01) -- but not the 100-mg group (P=0.09) -- were significantly better than those for the placebo group. Among the subjects who were continuously abstinent through the end of treatment, the mean absolute weight gain was inversely associated with the dose (a gain of 2.9 kg in the placebo group, 2.3 kg in 100-mg and 150-mg groups, and 1.5 kg in the 300-mg group; P= 0.02). No effects of treatment were observed on depression scores as measured serially by the Beck Depression Inventory. Thirty-seven subjects stopped treatment prematurely because of adverse events; the frequency was similar among all groups. CONCLUSIONS: A sustained-release form of bupropion was effective for smoking cessation and was accompanied by reduced weight gain and minimal side effects. Many participants in all groups were smoking at one year.     

Treatment of major depression in HIV-seropositive men. HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center Group

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fluoxetine plus group psychotherapy versus group psychotherapy alone in HIV-seropositive men (based on 1986 CDC classes II, III, and IV.C.2) who had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder (DSM-III-R). METHOD: During a 7-week trial, patients were treated with fluoxetine 20-60 mg or placebo 1-3 capsules per day and were seen in weekly supportive group psychotherapy. In addition, subjects were rated on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17), Clinical Global Impressions scales for Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity of Illness (CGI-S), and the short version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-13). Of the 47 patients enrolled in the study, 25 were administered fluoxetine and 22 were given placebo. RESULTS: Subjects who received fluoxetine began to show significantly more improvement than patients who received placebo on both self- and observer-rated scales by the end of the first week of treatment. By endpoint, patients treated with fluoxetine experienced greater mean changes from baseline compared with placebo-treated patients on the HAM-D-17 (12.1 vs. 6.6; F = 6.53, df = 1,45; p < .05) and BDI-13 (5.9 vs. 1.2; F = 5.73, df = 1,45; p < .05), and a greater percentage of fluoxetine-treated patients experienced a > or = 50% in HAM-D-17 scores (64% vs. 23%; chi2= 8.60, df = 1, p < .01). Differences were particularly apparent in subjects whose initial depressive episodes were rated as severe (i.e., HAM-D-17 score > or = 24). Severely depressed patients treated with fluoxetine had an endpoint CGI-I of 1.4 compared with an endpoint CGI-I of 2.7 for patients treated with placebo (F = 6.02, df = 1,11; p < .05). Further, side effects were generally mild and transient. The most frequently noted effects reported by subjects treated with fluoxetine were nausea, dry mouth, headache, and diarrhea, in decreasing order of frequency. CONCLUSION: This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluoxetine over and above group psychotherapy for the treatment of HIV-associated major depression.     

Effect of dehydroepiandrosterone on brown adipose tissue and energy balance in mice

BACKGROUND: Psychotropic drug dosing regimens are often based on the pharmacokinetic elimination half-life of the compound. This implies that the pharmacokinetic half-life of the drug may be the critical or sole determinant of pharmacodynamic half-life. In the present study, we examined the safety and efficacy of once- versus twice-daily dosing regimens of the immediate-release formulation of venlafaxine, a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake site blocker with a short elimination half-life. METHOD: Forty-eight patients with a diagnosis of DSM-IV major depressive episode were randomly assigned to once-daily (N = 25) versus twice-daily (N = 23) venlafaxine. Venlafaxine was started at 37.5 mg daily with specified increments up to 225 mg daily. Efficacy was rated using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients in each group completed 6 weeks of treatment. We observed a significant reduction in mean weekly HAM-D and MADRS scores at weeks 1 through 6 for both dosing groups (p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in mean HAM-D or MADRS scores between dosing groups at any time point. There was, however, a nonsignificant trend for a more rapid reduction in the mean HAM-D score at week 2 (p < .06) and in the mean MADRS score at week 1 (p < .07) and week 2 (p < .09) in the b.i.d. dosing group. Similarly, there was a significant decrease in the CGI score at week 2 (p < .02) in the b.i.d. dosing group. The rate of adverse events was similar between treatment groups; the most common adverse events were transient nausea and headaches. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that the immediate-release formulation of venlafaxine may be safe and effective in some patients when used in a once-daily dose regimen. Moreover, the present results suggest that the short elimination half-life of immediate-release venlafaxine should not be the sole determinant for multiple daily dosing and that antidepressant activity may be more profoundly influenced by a drug's pharmacodynamic half-life than by its pharmacokinetic half-life.     

Differential effects of migraine drugs on cerebral blood flow autoregulation

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and fluoxetine in depressed inpatients and outpatients. METHOD: Patients with a major depressive episode (DSM-III-R), a baseline score of > or=21 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and > or=2 on HAM-D Item 1 (depressed mood) were randomly assigned to a 6-week treatment with either mirtazapine (N=66, 15-60 mg/day) or fluoxetine (N=67, 20-40 mg/day). The upper limit of the mirtazapine dose range was above the dose range approved in the United States (15-45 mg/day). Efficacy was evaluated by the HAM-D, Clinical Global Impressions, the Visual Analogue Mood Rating Scale (VAMRS), and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (QLESQ). The efficacy analyses were performed on the intent-to-treat group using the last-observation-carried-forward method. RESULTS: Mean total 17-item HAM-D scores at baseline were 26.0 for the mirtazapine- and 26.1 for the fluoxetine-treated group. The decrease from baseline on the HAM-D was larger in the mirtazapine than in the fluoxetine group throughout the treatment period, reaching statistical significance at days 21 and 28. At assessments from day 21 and onward, the absolute difference between the 2 study groups favoring mirtazapine ranged from 3.7 to 4.2 points, the magnitude of difference usually seen between an efficacious antidepressant drug and placebo. Mean dosages at weeks 1-4 were 36.5 mg/day for mirtazapine and 19.6 mg/day for fluoxetine; the respective dosages at weeks 5-6 were 56.3 mg and 35.8 mg. Similar numbers of patients dropped out due to adverse events; tolerability profiles were comparable except for changes in body weight from baseline which were statistically significantly more pronounced in the mirtazapine group compared to the fluoxetine group. CONCLUSION: We found that mirtazapine was as well tolerated as fluoxetine and significantly more effective after 3 and 4 weeks of therapy.     

Comparison of once-daily doses of omeprazole (40 and 20 mg) and placebo in the treatment of benign gastric ulcer: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, conducted in 520 patients, was to compare the efficacy and safety of omeprazole (40 and 20 mg once daily) with placebo in the treatment of benign gastric ulcer. METHODS: Treatment with omeprazole or placebo lasted 4 wk; those whose ulcers remained unhealed continued the same treatment regimen for an additional 4 wk. The effects of therapy were determined by endoscopy and assessment of GI symptoms. Safety and tolerability were evaluated through reported adverse events, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: At weeks 4 and 8, the proportion of patients with healed ulcers was significantly greater in the omeprazole 40- and 20-mg groups than in the placebo group (p < 0.01). At week 8, the healing rate was significantly greater in the 40-mg group than in the 20-mg group (82.7 vs 74.8%, p < 0.05). In patients with large ulcers (>1 cm), the 40-mg regimen was associated with a significantly higher healing rate (78.9%) than both the 20-mg regimen (61.4%) and placebo (34.6%) at week 8 (p < 0.05 vs omeprazole 20 mg; p < 0.01 vs placebo). Healing rates in patients with small ulcers were similar for the 40- and 20-mg groups. Omeprazole was well tolerated, with no significant differences versus placebo in the overall incidence of clinical or laboratory adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole 40 and 20 mg, administered once daily, healed a significantly greater proportion of patients than did placebo. The 40-mg regimen offered significant advantages over the 20-mg regimen in patients with large ulcers.     

Pharmacokinetics of loratadine and pseudoephedrine following single and multiple doses of once- versus twice-daily combination tablet formulations in healthy adult males

The pharmacokinetic profiles of single and multiple doses of loratadine, descarboethoxyloratadine (DCL) (the major active metabolite of loratadine), and pseudoephedrine were determined in a randomized, open-label, two-way crossover study in 24 healthy men. Subjects received a single dose (day 1) and multiple doses (days 3 to 10) of a once-daily (QD) formulation of loratadine 10 mg in an immediate-release coating and pseudoephedrine sulfate 240 mg in an extended-release core (CLAR-ITIN-D 24 HOUR tablets), and a twice-daily (BID) formulation of loratadine 5 mg in an immediate-release coating and pseudoephedrine sulfate 120 mg, with 60 mg in an immediate-release coating and 60 mg in the barrier-protected core (CLARITIN-D 12 HOUR tablets) in study sessions, each separated by a 10-day washout period. Both regimens were safe and well tolerated. On day 1, plasma loratadine, DCL, and pseudoephedrine concentrations were higher following the QD formulation than following the BID formulation, as expected. On day 10, loratadine and DCL maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) values were, on average, 87% and 35% higher, respectively, for the QD formulation than for the BID formulation; however, the values of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 hours (AUC0-24) for loratadine and DCL were equivalent (90% confidence interval [CI]: 83% to 110% for loratadine; 90% to 107% for DCL). On day 10, pseudoephedrine Cmax and AUC0-24 values were equivalent (90% CI for Cmax: 94% to 109%; for AUC: 91% to 106%) for the two formulations, and lower pseudoephedrine concentrations were observed from 16 to 24 hours with the QD formulation. Both loratadine/pseudoephedrine formulations produced equivalent loratadine and DCL AUC0-24 values and equivalent pseudoephedrine Cmax and AUC0-24 values following multiple dosing. The lower pseudoephedrine concentrations in the evening with the QD formulation may minimize the potential for insomnia in patients when compared with the BID formulation.     

Effect of extended-release isosorbide mononitrate one hour after dosing in patients with stable angina pectoris. IMDUR Study Group

The effect of extended-release isosorbide mononitrate (ER-ISMN) on exercise tolerance 1 hour after dosing was compared with that of placebo in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of 151 patients with stable effort-induced angina. During a 9- to 24-day placebo run-in, patients underwent Bruce protocol baseline exercise tolerance tests, after which they received ER-ISMN or placebo for 5 days. ER-ISMN patients took 60 mg each morning for the first 4 days and 120 mg on the morning of the fifth day. One hour after dosing, ER-ISMN patients had a significantly greater increase in total exercise time (days 1 to 4: 5 +/- 53 seconds; day 5: 53 +/- 58 seconds) than the placebo-treated patients (days 1 to 4: 14 +/- 37 seconds; day 5: 21 +/- 48) (p <0.001). The times to development of angina and 1-mm ST-segment depression were significantly longer in the ER-ISMN group than in the placebo group. The difference between the groups in mean time to onset of angina was 34 seconds after the 60-mg dose (p = 0.004) and 49 seconds after the 120-mg dose (p <0.001). The mean time to development of a 1-mm ST-segment depression was 51 and 61 seconds longer after the 60-mg and 120-mg ER-ISMN doses, respectively, than after placebo (p <0.001). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 37% (28 of 75) and 7% (5 of 76) of patients in the ER-ISMN and placebo groups, respectively. As expected, headache was more frequent in the ER-ISMN group than in the placebo group (28% and 1%, respectively). The effects of ER-ISMN (60 mg and 120 mg) are clinically evident 1 hour after dosing, resulting in better exercise tolerance in patients with angina pectoris.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily versus twice-daily formulations of diltiazem in the treatment of systemic hypertension. The Canadian Multicenter Diltiazem-CD Hypertension Trial Group

The efficacy and safety of optimally titrated once-daily (CD) and twice-daily (SR) diltiazem were compared in 111 patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension [seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 95 mmHg and < or = 114 mmHg] in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo run-in, parallel-group trial. Following a 4 week washout and placebo-controlled run-in period, patients were randomized to receive diltiazem CD 180 mg and matching placebo (n = 54), or diltiazem SR 90 mg bid (n = 57). Total daily doses were titrated from 180 mg to 360 mg to achieve a goal of seated DBP < 90 mmHg during a 6 week titration period. The patients continued to receive their optimal dose for a 6 week follow-up period. Ninety-six (96) patients (diltiazem CD: 47, diltiazem SR: 49) completed the study protocol, with 60% of the diltiazem CD and 55% of the diltiazem SR patients achieving the goal of seated DBP of < 90 mmHg (p = 0.685). Although significant decreases occurred in seated and standing measurements of diastolic and systolic BP and heart rate with treatment in both groups, there were no significant differences between treatment groups. Both medications were well tolerated, with a similar frequency of adverse effects [diltiazem CD: 24/54 (37%) patients; diltiazem SR: 24/57 (42.1%) patients] with the most frequently reported adverse effects being headache and edema.     

Double-blind evaluation of the safety and pharmacokinetics of multiple oral once-daily 750-milligram and 1-gram doses of levofloxacin in healthy volunteers

The safety and pharmacokinetics of once-daily oral levofloxacin in 16 healthy male volunteers were investigated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Subjects were randomly assigned to the treatment (n = 10) or placebo group (n = 6). In study period 1, 750 mg of levofloxacin or a placebo was administered orally as a single dose on day 1, followed by a washout period on days 2 and 3; dosing resumed for days 4 to 10. Following a 3-day washout period, 1 g of levofloxacin or a placebo was administered in a similar fashion in period 2. Plasma and urine levofloxacin concentrations were measured by high-pressure liquid chromatography. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated by model-independent methods. Levofloxacin was rapidly absorbed after single and multiple once-daily 750-mg and 1-g doses with an apparently large volume of distribution. Peak plasma levofloxacin concentration (Cmax) values were generally attained within 2 h postdose. The mean values of Cmax and area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) following a single 750-mg dose were 7.1 microg/ml and 71.3 microg x h/ml, respectively, compared to 8.6 microg/ml and 90.7 microg x h/ml, respectively, at steady state. Following the single 1-g dose, mean Cmax and AUC0-24 values were 8.9 microg/ml and 95.4 microg x h/ml, respectively; corresponding values at steady state were 11.8 microg/ml and 118 microg x h/ml. These Cmax and AUC0-24 values indicate modest and similar degrees of accumulation upon multiple dosing at the two dose levels. Values of apparent total body clearance (CL/F), apparent volume of distribution (Vss/F), half-life (t1/2), and renal clearance (CL[R]) were similar for the two dose levels and did not vary from single to multiple dosing. Mean steady-state values for CL/F, Vss/F, t1/2, and CL(R) following 750 mg of levofloxacin were 143 ml/min, 100 liters, 8.8 h, and 116 ml/min, respectively; corresponding values for the 1-g dose were 146 ml/min, 105 liters, 8.9 h, and 105 ml/min. In general, the pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin in healthy subjects following 750-mg and 1-g single and multiple once-daily oral doses appear to be consistent with those found in previous studies of healthy volunteers given 500-mg doses. Levofloxacin was well tolerated at either high dose level. The most frequently reported drug-related adverse events were nausea and headache.     

A benefit-risk analysis of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) and venlafaxine immediate release (IR) in outpatients with major depression

The traditional analysis of clinical trial data for antidepressants separately evaluates the results of efficacy and tolerability. The present analysis simultaneously evaluated these outcome criteria in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of outpatients with major depression. Patients received either once-daily extended release (XR) venlafaxine or immediate release (IR) venlafaxine. Individual patient data on efficacy and treatment-emergent study events (TESE) for venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine IR were grouped into five categories. Efficacy was defined as a final on-therapy Clinical Global Impressions improvement score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved). A TESE was defined as any new adverse event or any adverse event that existed at baseline and increased in severity during treatment. Benefit/risk was evaluated using a linear measure and a ratio measure for dizziness, Insomnia, nausea, nervousness, somnolence, and a composite of anticholinergic events. This analysis demonstrated a superior benefit/risk ratio for the once-daily venlafaxine XR compared with venlafaxine IR, and a statistically significant benefit-to-risk ratio of at least 2:1 for venlafaxine XR over venlafaxine IR was demonstrated for nausea and dizziness. This approach to the statistical analysis of clinical trial data represents an advancement in addressing treatment outcome by incorporating clinically relevant measures of both efficacy and safety.     

Bupropion improves attention but does not affect impulsive behavior in healthy young adults.

Bupropion is an effective abstinence aid for cessation of smoking and possibly other drug use as well. There is evidence that bupropion improves attention and impulse control in certain patient populations, and improvements in these processes could mediate its efficacy as an abstinence aid. In the present study, we tested the effects of acute bupropion on measures of attention and impulsivity in healthy adults with d-amphetamine included as a positive control. Twenty-two nonsmokers (11 women) and 11 smokers (4 women) completed four 4-hr sessions where they received placebo, bupropion (150 or 300 mg), or d-amphetamine (20 mg) in capsules. Ninety minutes after capsule administration, participants were tested on attention with a simple reaction time task (SRT) and on impulsivity with the stop task, a delay and probability discounting task (DPD), and the balloon analogue risk task (BART). Participants also completed mood questionnaires during sessions. Bupropion (150 mg) decreased lapses in attention on the SRT, but did not affect performance on the stop task, DPD, or BART. Amphetamine decreased lapses in attention and speeded sensory motor processing time on the SRT but did not significantly affect responding on the stop task or DPD. On the BART, d-amphetamine tended to decrease risk taking in men but increased risk taking in women. Bupropion (300 mg) and d-amphetamine increased ratings of arousal. These results suggest that bupropion improves attention without affecting impulsive behavior in healthy adults. Improvements in attention may contribute to the effectiveness of bupropion as a pharmacotherapy for smoking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Possible involvement of free radicals in lipopolysaccharide-induced labyrinthitis in the guinea pig: a morphological and functional investigation

BACKGROUND: There are few published placebo-controlled clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of the newer antidepressants in markedly or severely depressed hospitalized patients. This study demonstrates the efficacy of nefazodone compared with placebo in the treatment of patients hospitalized for major depression. METHOD: Nefazodone and placebo treatment were compared in a 6-week trial of 120 patients hospitalized for DSM-III-R diagnosed major depression (without psychosis) at 2 study centers. Efficacy was evaluated using standard psychiatric rating scales, and patients were monitored for safety. RESULTS: Nefazodone treatment resulted in a significant reduction (p < .01) of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) total score compared with placebo from the end of the first treatment week through the end of the study (-12.2 nefazodone vs. -7.7 placebo). At the end of the trial, significantly more nefazodone-treated patients (50%) than placebo-treated patients (29%) had responded, as indicated by their Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score (p = .021) or by a > or = 50% reduction in their HAM-D-17 scores (p = .017). Significantly more patients treated with nefazodone (36%) than placebo-treated patients (14%) had a HAM-D-17 score < or = 10 at the end of treatment (p = .004). Significant treatment differences (p < .01) in favor of nefazodone were also seen in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale; the HAM-D retardation, anxiety, and sleep disturbance factors; and HAM-D item 1 (depressed mood). Patients with dysthymia in addition to major depression also showed significant improvement (p < .05) when treated with nefazodone, with significant differences in response rates seen as early as week 2 and through the end of the trial. The mean nefazodone dose was 491 mg/day at the end of week 2 and 503 mg/day at the end of treatment. Nefazodone was well tolerated, and the number of patients discontinuing owing to adverse events was small, with no significant safety issues noted in either treatment group. Fewer nefazodone-treated than placebo-treated patients discontinued owing to lack of efficacy. CONCLUSION: Nefazodone was superior to placebo in the treatment of marked to severe major depression in patients requiring hospitalization. The clinical benefit of nefazodone was evident as early as the first week of treatment as judged by several measures of efficacy, with significant differences from placebo sustained throughout the trial.     

Naratriptan is effective and well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine. Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. The Naratriptan S2WA3003 Study Group

The efficacy and tolerability of naratriptan tablets (2.5 mg, 1 mg, and 0.25 mg) compared with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine were evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, four-period crossover study. Five hundred eighty-six assessable patients received naratriptan 2.5 mg, 595 received 1 mg, 591 received 0.25 mg, 602 received placebo. Headache relief (moderate or severe pain reduced to mild or none) 4 hours postdose was reported in 68% of patients after treatment with naratriptan 2.5 mg compared with 57% after 1 mg, 39% after 0.25 mg, and 33% after placebo (p < 0.001 naratriptan 2.5 mg and 1 mg versus placebo and 1 mg and 2.5 mg versus 0.25 mg). Headache relief was maintained 8, 12, and 24 hours postdose with no use of rescue medication or a second dose of study medication by significantly (p < 0.001) greater percentages of patients after treatment with naratriptan 2.5 mg or 1 mg compared with naratriptan 0.25 mg or placebo. Naratriptan was also more effective than placebo in reducing clinical disability and the incidences of nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. The overall incidence of adverse events and the incidences of specific adverse events did not differ in the naratriptan groups compared with placebo. No clinically relevant changes in ECG, blood pressure, or laboratory findings were reported. These data demonstrate that naratriptan is effective and well tolerated for the acute treatment of migraine. The 2.5-mg dose was associated with superior efficacy, whereas its adverse event profile was similar to that of placebo.     

Extended treatment with bupropion SR for cigarette smoking cessation.

The authors present results of a randomized clinical trial of the efficacy of extended treatment with bupropion SR in producing longer term cigarette smoking cessation. Adult smokers (N = 362) received open-label treatment (11 weeks) that combined relapse prevention training, bupropion SR, and nicotine patch followed by extended treatment (14 weeks) with bupropion SR or matching placebo. Abstinence percentages were relatively high (week 11: 52%; week 25: bupropion, 42%; placebo, 38%; week 52: bupropion, 33%; placebo, 34%), but bupropion SR did not surpass placebo. Gender and baseline craving level were identified as significant, independent moderators of treatment response. Men were more likely to abstain than women (week 11: 59% vs. 43%, p = .001; week 25: 48% vs. 31%, p = .001; week 52: 39% vs. 27%, p = .01). Because most smokers suffer relapse with any current cessation treatment, the comparatively high abstinence percentages achieved in this trial are of interest. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting with single intravenous doses of dolasetron mesylate: a multicenter trial. Dolasetron Mesylate PONV Treatment Study Group

This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of four intravenous (I.V.) doses of dolasetron, an investigational 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, for the treatment of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) after outpatient surgery under general anesthesia. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial compared the antiemetic efficacy of 12.5, 25, 50, or 100 mg I.V. dolasetron with placebo over 24 h using complete response (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication), time to first emetic episode or rescue medication, and patient nausea and satisfaction with antiemetic therapy as rated by visual analog scale (VAS). Of 1557 patients enrolled, 620 patients were eligible for treatment. Complete response rates for all dolasetron doses--12.5 mg (35%), 25 mg (28%), 50 mg (29%), and 100 mg (29%)--were significantly more effective than placebo (11%, P < 0.05). There was a significant gender interaction for complete response (P < 0.01). Of the patients in the 25-mg and 100-mg dose groups, 12% and 13%, respectively, experienced no nausea (VAS score < 5 mm) versus 5% in the placebo group (P < 0.05). There were no clinically relevant changes in vital signs or laboratory values and no trends with dose for adverse events. Dolasetron is effective for treating PONV and has an adverse event profile similar to that of placebo. The 12.5-mg dose was as effective as larger doses for complete response. IMPLICATIONS: Nausea and vomiting are common problems for postsurgical patients. In this study of 620 patients undergoing surgery, a 12.5-mg dose of intravenous dolasetron, a new serotonin-receptor blocker, was significantly more effective than placebo in treating established postoperative nausea and vomiting. Dolasetron 12.5 mg was as safe as placebo.     

Randomized Clinical Trial of the Efficacy of Bupropion Combined With Nicotine Patch in the Treatment of Adolescent Smokers.

Adolescent smokers (N = 211) were randomized to 1 of 2 groups: (a) nicotine patch plus bupropion SR (sustained release; 150 mg per day) or (b) nicotine patch plus placebo. Group skills training sessions were conducted each week by research staff. Abstinence rates at Weeks 10 and 26 were as follows: (a) patch plus bupropion, 23% and 8%, (b) patch plus placebo, 28% and 7%. Despite the lack of a treatment effect, a large majority of adolescents in both treatment groups reduced their consumption to a few cigarettes per day or less and maintained this reduction over time. Similarly, an examination of survival curves revealed that by the end of treatment many had managed to avoid a return to daily smoking. These findings are encouraging and suggest new avenues for research. For example, treatments of the kind examined in this report, augmented by extended maintenance therapies, may yield higher long-term success rates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An open-label, noncomparative study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of azithromycin in the treatment of patients with acute sinusitis

The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a 5-day, once-daily course of azithromycin were assessed in patients with acute sinusitis. Patients received two 250-mg capsules of azithromycin on day 1 and one 250-mg capsule on days 2 through 5. Of 102 clinically assessable patients, 27 (26.5%) were cured and 69 (67.6%) were improved on days 5 to 7. At days 12 to 16, 88 (86.3%) had a favorable clinical response. A total of 64 patients experienced adverse events; in all but two patients, adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. Thus azithromycin given once daily for 5 days was an effective treatment for patients with acute sinusitis.     

A double-masked comparison of Naprelan and nabumetone in osteoarthritis of the knee. Naprelan Study Group

The efficacy and safety of Naprelan (naproxen sodium) 1000 mg once daily (QD) and nabumetone 1500 mg QD were compared in a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-masked, 4-week study of adult outpatients with active osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Nabumetone 1500 mg was chosen for comparison because it is commonly prescribed in a QD dosing regimen for OA. After a washout period free of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 279 patients were enrolled and assigned randomly to treatment with either Naprelan 1000 mg QD (n = 92), nabumetone 1500 mg QD (n = 93), or placebo (n = 94). All treatments were evaluated for efficacy and safety at baseline and at weeks 2 and 4 of the treatment period or at discontinuation. Demographic characteristics were comparable among all treatment groups. As might be expected in a study of OA of the knee, a majority of patients enrolled were women (68.8%), and many were obese (mean weight, 195.6 lb; mean height, 66 in). Significantly fewer patients (13) treated with Naprelan prematurely discontinued the study than did patients treated with placebo (27); there was a lower rate of discontinuation for insufficient therapeutic effect in the Naprelan group compared with the nabumetone and placebo groups. Using an intent-to-treat model, the overall distribution of scores in all three primary efficacy assessments (investigator's global assessment of OA, patient's global assessment of OA, and walking pain) at week 2 and at the last visit was significantly better for the Naprelan group compared with both the nabumetone and placebo groups. The mean improvement from baseline was also significant for Naprelan compared with the nabumetone and placebo groups for all three assessments at week 2 and for investigator's global assessment of OA and walking pain at the last visit. The nabumetone-treated group showed significant improvement over the placebo-treated group in only one primary assessment: mean change from baseline in patient's global assessment of OA at week 2. At week 2, significant differences favoring Naprelan versus nabumetone and placebo were measured in overall distribution of scores for joint tenderness and nighttime pain. Distribution of quality of sleep and inactivity stiffness scores also improved relative to placebo at week 2. At the last visit, nighttime pain scores were still significantly better for patients receiving Naprelan versus nabumetone and placebo. Patients receiving nabumetone had statistically significant improvement from baseline in inactivity stiffness compared with placebo at week 2. There were no clinically important differences among treatment groups in the occurrence of adverse events or laboratory abnormalities. The results of this 4-week study of Naprelan 1000 mg QD compared with nabumetone 1500 mg QD demonstrate at least equal efficacy (superior efficacy was demonstrated for several parameters) and equal safety in adult outpatients with active OA of the knee.