Comparison of Treatment Adherence between Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Moclobemide in Patients with Social Anxiety Disorder

OBJECTIVE: With respect to the pharmacotherapy of social anxiety disorder (SAD), it has been suggested that treatment duration is an important factor that can significantly predict responses. The present study aimed to compare the treatment adherence of SAD patients who were taking either SSRIs or reversible inhibitors of MAO-A (moclobemide) by measuring treatment duration and all-cause discontinuation rates of pharmacotherapy in a natural clinical setting. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the data of 172 patients diagnosed with SAD. Depending on their medication, we divided the patients into two groups, SSRI (n=54) or moclobemide (n=118). The expected number of all-cause discontinuation every 2 weeks after starting treatment was calculated by life table survival methods. A multi-variable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze the potential influence of explanatory variables. RESULTS: Treatment duration was significantly longer in the SSRI group [46.41+/-56.96, median=12.0 (weeks)] than in the moclobemide group [25.53+/-34.74, median=12.0 (weeks), Z=2.352, p=0.019]. Overall, all-cause discontinuation rates were significantly lower with SSRIs (81%) than moclobemide (96%, chi2=4.532, p=0.033). CONCLUSION: The SSRI group had a longer treatment duration and lower all-cause discontinuation rate than moclobemide. Further, only the type of medication had a significant effect on all-cause discontinuation rates and therefore, we could predict better treatment adherence with the SSRIs in the treatment of SAD.

MAO-inhibitors in Parkinson's Disease

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAO-I) belong to the earliest drugs tried in Parkinson's disease (PD). They have been used with or without levodopa (L-DOPA). Non-selective MAO-I due to their side-effect/adverse reaction profile, like tranylcypromine have limited use in the treatment of depression in PD, while selective, reversible MAO-A inhibitors are recommended due to their easier clinical handling. For the treatment of akinesia and motor fluctuations selective irreversible MAO-B inhibitors selegiline and rasagiline are recommended. They are safe and well tolerated at the recommended daily doses. Their main differences are related to (1) metabolism, (2) interaction with CYP-enzymes and (3) quantitative properties at the molecular biological/genetic level. Rasagiline is more potent in clinical practise and has a hypothesis driven more favourable side effect/adverse reaction profile due to its metabolism to aminoindan. Both selegiline and rasagiline have a neuroprotective and neurorestaurative potential. A head-to head clinical trial would be of utmost interest from both the clinical outcome and a hypothesis-driven point of view. Selegiline is available as tablet and melting tablet for PD and as transdermal selegiline for depression, while rasagiline is marketed as tablet for PD. In general, the clinical use of MAO-I nowadays is underestimated. There should be more efforts to evaluate their clinical potency as antidepressants and antidementive drugs in addition to the final proof of their disease-modifying potential. In line with this are recent innovative developments of MAO-I plus inhibition of acetylcholine esterase for Alzheimer's disease as well as combined MAO-I and iron chelation for PD.

Effect of Short-Term Treatment of Moclobemide in Patients with Social Phobia: Preliminary Study / 대한정신약물학회지

OBJECTIVE: Although there are a few studies reporting the efficacy of moclobemide in the treatment of social phobia, it has been poorly studied in Korea. The purpose of this study was to investigate the short term efficacy of moclobemide in Korean patients with social phobia. METHOD: Sixty six patients with social phobia based on DSM-IV criteria were enrolled to 4-week trial with a flexible-dose regime of moclobemide. Treatment responses were assessed at baseline and week 4 with Liebowits Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation (BFNE), Mattick's Social Phobia Scale, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Sheehan's Disability Scale (SDS). RESULT: Thirty eight of 66 patients completed the 4-week trial. Scores of LSAS, BFNE, and Mattick's Social Phobia Scale at baseline were not significantly reduced after 4-week trial (p=0.084, p=0.537, p=0.283, p=0.111, respectively). But scores of BDI and 3 of 4 Sheehan's Disability Subscale at baseline were significantly reduced (p=0.026, p=0.000, p=0.005, p=0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: Overall results of preliminary study showed that moclobemide could be used for the treatment of depression and functional impairment, but that it was not effective for treatment of anxiety and phobic avoidance of social phobic patients. More controlled, long-term studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of moclobemide for treatment of social phobia.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Moclobemide Compared with Amitriptyline in Dysthymic Disorder

BACKGROUND: Since dysthymia begins in late childhood or adolescence and has a chronic course, long-term pharmacotherapy may be required. New generation antidepressant, moclobemide, with more acceptable side effect profiles, is effective in the treatment of dysthymia. The main objective of this study was to determine whether they exhibit comparable efficacy and tolerability in dysthymia to amitriptyline. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The efficacy and tolerability of the moclobemide and amitriptyline, were compared in a eight-week single-centre double-blind study in patients(n=37) with dysthymia using he HAMD-17, the Clinical Global Impression Scale(CGI), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale(MADRS), Efficacy Index-Therapeutic Index(EITE), 4-point Index Side Effect Scale(4-PISES), and Efficacy Index-Side Effect Scale(EISE). RESULTS: A total of 37 patients entered the study, 19 were randomly assigned to the moclobemide group and 18 to be amitriptyline group. Demographic and illness characteristics were similar in both groups. There were no significant difference between two groups at the total 17-HDRS score, the HAMD-17% improvement, the total MADRS score, CGI response, and the EITE. In the comparison of EISE between two groups, the scores of the moclobemide group were relatively lower than the amitriptylinen group in full treatment. And the differences were significant(moclobemide group 1.39+/-0.61 ; amitriptyline group 2.00+/-0.85, p<.001). At the 4-PISE. There was no serious or treatment threatening side effects. And there was no specific difference in side effects between two groups. The moclobemide group reported higher EIR scores than the amitriptyline group at every follow up day, but the differences were not significant. And there was no significant differences in the scores of five HRQOL subcategories which is compared between two groups at every follow up days. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of 17-HDRS and MADRS, moclobemide and amitriptyline are equally effective at least in allevating dysthymic symptoms. But moclobemide tended to be less troubling and better tolerated than amitriptyline. Therefore, moclobemide treatment can be used as a safe, and higher satisfactory treatment strategy for the dysthymia.