Psychopharmacotherapy of panic disorder: 8-week randomized trial with clonazepam and paroxetine

The objective of the present randomized, open-label, naturalistic 8-week study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with clonazepam (N = 63) and paroxetine (N = 57) in patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Efficacy assessment included number of panic attacks and clinician ratings of the global severity of panic disorders with the clinical global impression (CGI) improvement (CGI-I) and CGI severity (CGI-S) scales. Most patients were females (69.8 and 68.4 percent in the clonazepam and paroxetine groups, respectively) and age (mean ± SD) was 35.9 ± 9.6 years for the clonazepam group and 33.7 ± 8.8 years for the paroxetine group. Treatment with clonazepam versus paroxetine resulted in fewer weekly panic attacks at week 4 (0.1 vs 0.5, respectively; P < 0.01), and greater clinical improvements at week 8 (CGI-I: 1.6 vs 2.9; P = 0.04). Anxiety severity was significantly reduced with clonazepam versus paroxetine at weeks 1 and 2, with no difference in panic disorder severity. Patients treated with clonazepam had fewer adverse events than patients treated with paroxetine (73 vs 95 percent; P = 0.001). The most common adverse events were drowsiness/fatigue (57 percent), memory/concentration difficulties (24 percent), and sexual dysfunction (11 percent) in the clonazepam group and drowsiness/fatigue (81 percent), sexual dysfunction (70 percent), and nausea/vomiting (61 percent) in the paroxetine group. This naturalistic study confirms the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam and paroxetine in the acute treatment of patients with panic disorder.

Psychopharmacotherapy of panic disorder: 8-week randomized trial with clonazepam and paroxetine.

The objective of the present randomized, open-label, naturalistic 8-week study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with clonazepam (N = 63) and paroxetine (N = 57) in patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Efficacy assessment included number of panic attacks and clinician ratings of the global severity of panic disorders with the clinical global impression (CGI) improvement (CGI-I) and CGI severity (CGI-S) scales. Most patients were females (69.8 and 68.4% in the clonazepam and paroxetine groups, respectively) and age (mean ± SD) was 35.9 ± 9.6 years for the clonazepam group and 33.7 ± 8.8 years for the paroxetine group. Treatment with clonazepam versus paroxetine resulted in fewer weekly panic attacks at week 4 (0.1 vs 0.5, respectively; P < 0.01), and greater clinical improvements at week 8 (CGI-I: 1.6 vs 2.9; P = 0.04). Anxiety severity was significantly reduced with clonazepam versus paroxetine at weeks 1 and 2, with no difference in panic disorder severity. Patients treated with clonazepam had fewer adverse events than patients treated with paroxetine (73 vs 95%; P = 0.001). The most common adverse events were drowsiness/fatigue (57%), memory/concentration difficulties (24%), and sexual dysfunction (11%) in the clonazepam group and drowsiness/fatigue (81%), sexual dysfunction (70%), and nausea/vomiting (61%) in the paroxetine group. This naturalistic study confirms the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam and paroxetine in the acute treatment of patients with panic disorder.

Meta-analysis of double blind randomized controlled clinical trials of acetyl-L-carnitine versus placebo in the treatment of mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer's disease.

The efficacy of acetyl-L-carnitine (gamma-trimethyl- beta-acetylbutyrobetaine (Alcar) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild (early) Alzheimer's disease (AD) was investigated with a meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective, parallel group comparison studies of at least 3 months duration. The duration of the studies was 3, 6 or 12 months and the daily dose varied between studies from 1.5-3.0 g/day. An effect size was calculated to reflect the results of the variety of measures used in the studies grouped into the categories of clinical tests and psychometric tests. The effect sizes from the categories were integrated into an overall summary effect size. The effect size for the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-CH) was calculated separately. Meta-analysis showed a significant advantage for Alcar compared to placebo for the integrated summary effect [ES =0.201, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.107-0.295] and CGI-CH (ES =0.32, 95% CI=0.18-0.47). The beneficial effects were seen on both the clinical scales and the psychometric tests. The advantage for Alcar was seen by the time of the first assessment at 3 months and increased over time. Alcar was well tolerated in all studies.

Moclobemide is effective and well tolerated in the long-term pharmacotherapy of social anxiety disorder with or without comorbid anxiety disorder.

Social phobia (social anxiety disorder) is a highly prevalent and chronic disorder that is associated with significant comorbidity and disability. Despite recent advances in the pharmacotherapy of the disorder, there is a paucity of randomized controlled trials on patients with comorbid disorders and on maintenance treatment. A randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind multi-site trial of moclobemide, a reversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase A, was undertaken with 390 subjects. After an initial 12 weeks, there was the option of continuing for an additional 6 months of treatment. The primary efficacy parameter chosen was responder status as defined by the Clinical Global Impression scale change item. From week 4 onwards, there was a significantly higher response rate on moclobemide than on placebo. Superiority of medication over placebo was similar in patients with comorbid anxiety disorders (33% of subjects) and without, as well as in patients with different subtypes of social anxiety disorder; indeed, treatment with moclobemide rather than placebo was the strongest predictor of response. Adverse events were similar across treatment groups, and were typically mild and transient. In the extension phase, response rates remained higher in the moclobemide group, and ratings of tolerability were equally high in both groups. Thus, in a large sample of social anxiety disorder patients with and without comorbid anxiety disorders, moclobemide was both effective and well-tolerated in the short as well as long-term. These data confirm and extend previous findings on the value of moclobemide in the treatment of social anxiety disorder, and strengthen the range of therapeutic options for managing this important disorder.

Moclobemide in patients with dementia and depression.

Moclobemide, the first reversible inhibitor of MAOA (so-called RIMA) to become widely available for clinical use, is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant. Preclinical experiments, as well as studies in human volunteers and patients, provide evidence for the cognition enhancing effects of moclobemide. This cognition improvement, taken together with moclobemide's absence of anticholinergic effects, lack of sedation, and similarity in pharmacokinetics in young and elderly individuals, makes this drug especially appropriate for use in treatment of the elderly depressed patient.

Clinical pharmacology of moclobemide during chronic administration of high doses to healthy subjects.

The objectives of this study were to assess the tolerability, safety, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of high-dose moclobemide in healthy subjects. Two sequential groups of six male and six female subjects (eight on active treatment, four on placebo) received for 8 days moclobemide 450 mg b.i.d. and 600 mg b.i.d., respectively. Intravenous tyramine pressor tests were conducted at baseline, at the beginning of treatment and at steady state. Oral tyramine pressor tests with 50, 100 and 150 mg tyramine were conducted under steady-state conditions. Pharmacokinetic parameters of moclobemide and two of its metabolites in plasma and urine were determined after the first and last dose of moclobemide. The incidence and intensity of adverse events was dose-dependent. The most frequently reported adverse events were insomnia, headache, dizziness and dry mouth. The i.v. tyramine pressor sensitivity during both moclobemide dosing regimens was enhanced 3 to 4-fold. Intake of tyramine 50 mg did not result in systolic blood pressure increases greater than 30 mmHg. With regard to blood pressure increases, tyramine 100 mg is still compatible with moclobemide 450 mg b.i.d. but not with 600 mg b.i.d. The clearance of moclobemide decreased by about 60% on multiple dosing, but no differences were found between both dosing regimens. The urinary excretion of the N-oxide metabolite doubled during multiple dosing. In conclusion, the maximum tolerated dose of moclobemide in healthy subjects is 600 mg b.i.d. provided the tyramine content in a meal is not higher than 50 mg.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between fluoxetine and moclobemide in the investigation of development of the "serotonin syndrome".

OBJECTIVE: To assess the tolerability, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of combined treatment with fluoxetine and moclobemide in healthy subjects. METHODS: Fluoxetine (20 to 40 mg/day) was administered for 23 days to 18 subjects. At (nor)fluoxetine steady state, subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive in addition either moclobemide (ascending doses up to 600 mg/day) of placebo. A single 300 mg dose of moclobemide was administered before and at the end of the fluoxetine regimen to assess the effects of the latter on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of moclobemide. Adverse events and vital signs were recorded and pharmacokinetic parameters of fluoxetine and moclobemide were determined. Plasma concentrations of 3,4-dihydroxy-phenyl-glycol, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, and serotonin uptake into platelets were assessed as pharmacodynamic measures. RESULTS: The number, intensity, or type of adverse events did not change when moclobemide was added to fluoxetine. No clinically relevant changes in safety parameters occurred. Fluoxetine markedly inhibited the metabolism of moclobemide. However, multiple dosing of moclobemide did not lead the excessive accumulation. 3,4-Dihydroxyphenylglycol, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, and 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid plasma levels and serotonin uptake did not reveal a pharmacodynamic interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with fluoxetine and moclobemide did not provide any indication of development of the "serotonin syndrome."

Moclobemide and imipramine in chronic depression (dysthymia): an international double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. International Collaborative Study Group.

An international, multicenter, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to determine the safety and antidepressant efficacy of moclobemide, a new reversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase A, and imipramine in the treatment of dysthymia (DSM-III-R). A total of 315 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to an 8-week treatment in one of three groups (moclobemide, imipramine and placebo). Patients were male or female outpatients aged between 18 and 65 years meeting DSM-III-R criteria for dysthymia, primary type, with late or early onset. Of the patients in each group 85% completed the 8-week treatment period. The percentage of patients who no longer fulfilled DSM-III-R symptom criteria at treatment endpoint was significantly higher in the moclobemide (60%) and imipramine (49%) treatment groups than in the placebo group (22%). Differences to placebo were also statistically significant both for moclobemide and for imipramine on the other efficacy variables (i.e. Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, final overall efficacy assessment, Clinical Global Impression and symptom check list self-rating). A significant superiority of moclobemide and imipramine over placebo was found in pure dysthymia and in double-depression, as well as in early and late onset subgroups. In early onset cases, moclobemide was significantly more effective than was imipramine on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Anticholinergic symptoms and sleepiness were significantly more frequent side effects on imipramine than on moclobemide or on placebo, and the investigators' final overall assessment of tolerability significantly favoured moclobemide over imipramine. This study demonstrates the efficacy of high dose moclobemide (mean dose 675 mg/day) and high dose imipramine (220 mg/day) against placebo in the treatment of dysthymia. Moclobemide was better tolerated than was imipramine.

Efficacy and tolerability of moclobemide in comparison with placebo, tricyclic antidepressants, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in elderly depressed patients: a clinical overview.

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy and safety of moclobemide in comparison with TCAs (for our purposes, "TCAs" will represent tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants, including maprotilin and mianserin) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in elderly depressed patients. METHODS: The efficacy data reviewed were obtained from the following sources: 1) results of published studies in the elderly; 2) data on patients aged > or = 60 years extracted from all available controlled trials in adults (> or = 18 years) in which moclobemide was compared with TCAs or SSRIs; and 3) the adverse events were extracted for patients aged > or = 60 years from the safety data base of all available comparative short-term studies with moclobemide versus TCAs, SSRIs, or placebo and of long-term studies with moclobemide. RESULTS: The data show that moclobemide is an effective antidepressant in depressed patients aged > or = 60 years. The response rate to moclobemide was 50% to 55% in this population. Moclobemide was more effective than placebo and was of similar efficacy to the TCAs and the more recently introduced SSRIs. The tolerability of moclobemide was rated as "very good" or "good" in almost 90% of these patients, which was better than the tolerability of TCAs and similar to that of SSRIs. Patients without any adverse events were more frequently found in the moclobemide group than in those treated with TCAs (P < 0.01) or SSRIs (P < 0.01). Adverse events of the anticholinergic type were more frequent with TCAs than with moclobemide (P < 0.001), and nausea was found 3 times more frequently with SSRIs than with moclobemide (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Moclobemide is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant for the treatment of elderly depressed patients.

Social phobia: long-term treatment outcome and prediction of response--a moclobemide study.

In this open, prospective, structured, naturalistic study of the efficacy of long-term treatment in social phobia 93 consecutive outpatients suffering from severe generalized or circumscribed social phobia (median Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale score 83) and a high degree of concomitant psychiatric disease were administered treatment with moclobemide (712 +/- 75 mg/day at steady state). Fifty-nine patients who responded (Clinical Global Impression for Change: very much/much improved) completed 2 years of treatment. Patients then entered a drug-free period of at least 1 month during which 88% of the patients deteriorated. In a further 2-year treatment period with moclobemide those patients who had deteriorated became responders again. Symptoms recurred in a substantial number of the patients at the end of the study when the dose was reduced and then discontinued. Post-study follow up at 6-24 months after study completion found that 63.2% of patients were almost asymptomatic or had only mild symptoms, 15.8% were off all treatment, 28.1% were back on moclobemide, 10.6% were taking another psychotropic drug and 8.8% were in psychotherapy. All previous non-responders to moclobemide and mostly alcohol abusers (36.9%), had moderate or severe social phobia and were off all treatment (13.3%), on psychotherapy (15.9%) or on another psychotropic drug (8.8%). Discriminant analysis correctly predicted outcome in 93.5% of all patients. Alcohol abuse was by far the strongest predictor of negative outcome. Coexisting generalized anxiety disorder and dysthymia were less potent in this regard, whereas high baseline Hamilton anxiety or depression scale scores, circumscribed social phobia, or social phobia unassociated with avoidant personality disorder were predictors of a positive outcome. In conclusion, severe social phobia can be successfully treated in the long-term but many patients may need medication or psychotherapy for many years. Treatment should start as early as possible because complications such as alcohol abuse make treatment difficult.

Postvitrectomy positioning complicated by ulnar nerve palsy.

PURPOSE: Ulnar nerve palsy is an unusual complication of postvitrectomy positioning. METHOD: We report two such cases. RESULTS: Both patients developed ulnar nerve palsy after maintaining a face-down position for 2 to 4 weeks after vitrectomy with intraocular perfluoro-octane. The neuropathy resolved in one patient after he was instructed to avoid prolonged pressure on his flexed elbows, whereas the other patient ultimately required surgical decompression of the nerve at the elbow. CONCLUSION: Ulnar nerve palsy can result from postvitrectomy positioning associated with prolonged direct pressure on the ulnar nerve or compression of the ulnar nerve via flexion of the elbow.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of flumazenil in the treatment of portal systemic encephalopathy: a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Portal systemic encephalopathy (PSE) is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome associated with hepatic failure. Small scale studies have shown the benzodiazepine receptor antagonist flumazenil to be effective in ameliorating PSE. AIMS: To determine the efficacy of flumazenil in patients with non-comatous mild to moderate PSE (stages I to III) due to severe chronic liver disease. PATIENTS: 49 male and female adults without symptoms of severe bleeding and sepsis and who screened negative for benzodiazepine in both blood and urine, were included in the study. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive either three sequential bolus injections of flumazenil (0.4, 0.8, and 1 mg) or placebo at one minute intervals, followed by intravenous infusions of either flumazenil (1 mg/h) or placebo for three hours. Clinical PSE grading and vital signs were assessed hourly during baseline and post-treatment periods and half hourly during treatment. The main outcome measures were improvement in group average PSE score and reduction of two points in individual PSE score (clinically relevant improvement). RESULTS: The mean average improvement in the PSE score in the subjects treated with flumazenil was not statistically significantly different from placebo. However, for patients showing clinically relevant improvement, the difference between flumazenil and placebo was statistically significant (seven of 28 v none of 21; p = 0.015). Flumazenil was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A subgroup of patients with PSE resulting from chronic liver disease may benefit from the administration of flumazenil.

Moclobemide: a paradigm of research in clinical psychopharmacology.

The pre-clinical development of moclobemide is an example of broad research combined with serendipity. Moclobemide was first hypothesized as being an antilipaemic or antibiotic, but the screenings were negative. The search for its antidepressant qualities, based on anticholinergic tests, also proved negative and moclobemide was then suspected of being an antipsychotic before its specific and reversible monoamine oxidase (MAO)-A inhibition qualities were detected. After the establishment of its lack of relevant interference with tyramine pressure response, clinical trials were launched in 1977. In the first stage, multiple, small open and double-blind studies were carried out. Two decisive, large, multicentre, double-blind studies were later performed in Latin America and Austria. Further trials have confirmed the broad antidepressant activity of reversible monoamine oxidase inhibitors (RIMA), which is not confined to any one subtype of depression and which show good tolerability and low toxicity. Since moclobemide has been available on the market, extensive meta-analyses of a large data set provided a series of methodological results: factor structure of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), optimal criteria of efficacy, predictors of response, onset of action for antidepressants and placebo.

Moclobemide in elderly patients with cognitive decline and depression: an international double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The new reversible MAOl moclobemide was compared with placebo in the treatment of elderly patients with DSM-III diagnosis of dementia and/or of major depression. METHOD: Six hundred and ninety-four elderly patients with symptoms of depression and cognitive decline entered an international, multi-centre, double blind trial in which they were randomly allocated to treatment with either moclobemide 400 mg daily or placebo for 42 days. Five hundred and eleven patients met DSM-III criteria for dementia and were also depressed (DEM+D); 183 did not meet DSM-III criteria for dementia but met the criteria for DSM-III major depressive episode and also suffered from cognitive decline (MDE+CD). RESULTS: Analysis of the 17 and 24-item Hamilton Depression Scale scores showed that moclobemide, compared with placebo, produced significantly greater improvement in both the demented and depressed groups (P = 0.001 both diagnostic groups). There was an improvement in cognitive function as measured by the SCAG Factor 1 in moclobemide treated patients (P = 0.005 DEM+D; P = 0.02 MDE+CD). There was no evidence of decline in cognitive function as the result of treatment. Clinical global assessment of tolerance was 'excellent' and 'good' in 88% of the moclobemide and in 92% of the placebo treated patients. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment prematurely was similar in both treatment groups. There were no significant differences in side-effects between treatment groups. There were no significant changes in vital signs, ECG or laboratory findings in either treatment group. There were no dietary restrictions and no report of any tyramine reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Moclobemide was shown to be a safe, well tolerated and effective antidepressant, which did not cause impairment of cognitive function in elderly patients with a DSM-III diagnosis of dementia and/or DSM-III major depression.

Antidepressants and drug-metabolizing enzymes--expert group report.

Antidepressant drugs are extensively metabolized. Consequently, the biotransformation pattern of antidepressants has an important influence on their clinical properties, i.e., pharmacokinetics, toxicity, drug-drug interactions, side-effect profile and last but not least therapeutic efficacy. It was against this background that a multidisciplinary group of experts discussed the clinical relevance of the rapidly increasing body of knowledge of antidepressant-metabolizing enzymes. The variability of the response of a given individual to an antidepressant is determined genetically and by the environment. Genetic polymorphism of drug-metabolizing enzymes and inhibition by other substrates may affect the enzymatic biotransformation of antidepressants. In vitro assay techniques allow an estimation of the potential variability in clinical response to antidepressants and a reasonable prediction of the drug-drug interaction patterns. The results of in vitro tests should therefore be considered early in the development of an antidepressant as a background for designing clinical studies (treatment schedules and dosing). Physicians should have an understanding of the relevance of genetic polymorphism for clinical practice. Education is needed in order to fill the existing gaps in knowledge about antidepressant-enzyme interactions and their application in daily treatment practice. The information on potential drug interactions determined by genetic polymorphism and based on studies with enzymes should be increasingly contained in drug compendia.

Effect of flumazenil on the electroencephalogram of patients with portosystemic encephalopathy. Results of a double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled multicentre trial.

The efficacy of the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil has been assessed clinically in a double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled multicentre study in patients with grade I-III portosystemic encephalopathy. In an ancillary study reported here the effect of flumazenil on the electroencephalogram (EEG) was analysed in 32 patients who had EEG grading according to protocol. Following the baseline observation period, patients were randomised to receive (at 1 min interval) 3 sequential bolus injections of flumazenil (0.4, 0.8 and 1 mg) or placebo followed by infusions of flumazenil (1 mg/h) or placebo for 3 h. Patients were monitored for 5 h after infusion. A positive response was defined as 1 point improvement in EEG grade. After independent analysis of the EEG gradings 5 out of 17 (29%) flumazenil treated patients showed an improvement in EEG grading (3 after bolus, 2 during follow-up) compared to 2 out of 15 (13%) placebo treated patients (1 after bolus, 1 during follow-up) (95% confidence interval of difference: -12% to + 50%). Of the 5 EEG responders after flumazenil, 3 also had an improvement in clinical PSE grading (none after bolus, 2 during infusion, 1 during follow-up), compared to neither of the 2 EEG responders after placebo. EEg responders did not differ from non-responders with respect to Child-Pugh score, basal EEG, PSE grade and positivity for benzodiazepines. In conclusion, treatment perspectives for flumazenil in portosystemic encephalopathy appear to be present for only a minority of patients; however, this study yields no support for a major role of benzodiazepine antagonists in the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy.

Co-induction of anaesthesia: the rationale.

Combination therapy with two or more different drugs, with the intention of reaching the same therapeutic goal, was heavily criticized for a long time. However, it is accepted today, especially when advantages over monotherapy can be shown. For the induction of anaesthesia or for long-term sedation in the intensive care unit, combination therapy may offer an improved effect profile, a more balanced ratio of desired versus adverse effects, an improved time-course of effect, simpler treatment requirements or lower costs. Midazolam and propofol have been investigated as potential partners for those two indications. The mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic properties, pharmacological effect, the way in which they interact at the receptor site, the differences in pharmaceutical formulations, the side-effect profiles and economic considerations were compared. Animal experiments and clinical pharmacology studies have shown that midazolam and propofol have synergy with other centrally active drugs. It could be expected that the relationship between desired effects and adverse effects could be improved by skilful use of the synergism between midazolam and propofol. Co-induction of anaesthesia and co-administration in long-term sedation can offer improvements in therapeutic situations compared with monotherapy. These improvements are in terms of a more suitable effect profile, a more favourable ratio of desirable effects to side-effects, optimization of the time-course of effects and reduced costs.

Moclobemide and tricyclic antidepressants in severe depression: meta-analysis and prospective studies.

There is no generally accepted definition of severe depression, but hospitalization, high scores on rating scales, and the presence of psychotic symptoms are widely considered to be indicators of severe cases. For the purpose of this analysis of the antidepressant efficacy of the reversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase A moclobemide, all hospitalized cases were selected from the current database of comparative studies and compared with the standard tricyclics imipramine and clomipramine. The cases from comparisons of moclobemide and imipramine were analyzed together, because in accordance with the recommended range of doses, the dose ratio over all studies was approximately 3:1 (moclobemide: N = 238, mean dose, 453 mg/day; imipramine: N = 248, mean dose, 159 mg/day). The cases from comparisons of moclobemide and clomipramine could only be analyzed over all studies if dose was taken into account, because the dose ratio of approximately 3:1 was only given in one study (moclobemide: N = 62, mean dose, 466 mg/day; clomipramine: N = 66, mean dose, 154 mg/day), whereas the dose ratio over the other, earlier studies was approximately 2:1 (moclobemide: N = 58, mean dose, 258 mg/day; clomipramine, N = 59, mean dose, 124 mg/day). The efficacy as judged on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Global Assessment of Efficacy was analyzed for subgroups of inpatients, according to different severity bands (17-item HAM-D baseline total score, cut-off, 28 points) and according to the presence or absence of mood-congruent psychotic features. The results of our analysis failed to reveal any difference in efficacy between moclobemide and imipramine in any subgroup of hospitalized depressives, including patients in the highest HAM-D severity band and psychotic patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Relevance of reversible inhibitors of monoamine oxidase type A and of reuptake inhibition for noradrenaline turnover.

Noradrenaline (NA) and serotonin, monoamines that increase neurotransmission at the monoaminergic synapses, remain primary targets for antidepressant drugs. To help elucidate NA's role in the action of antidepressants, a model was set up allowing for a simulation of NA turnover under various conditions examining 3 compartments: newly synthesized vesicular NA, released synaptic NA, and vesicular NA reuptake across neuronal membranes. We compared the influence of the reversible MAO inhibitor, moclobemide, and the NA reuptake inhibitor, desipramine, both useful in regaining baseline synaptic NA concentrations. Moclobemide appears less sensitive to fluctuations either in drug concentrations and/or physiological determinants of NA turnover; we conclude that it may influence brain function in a more regulatory way than reuptake inhibitors.

Pharmacology of flumazenil.

Flumazenil, an imidazobenzodiazepine, is the first benzodiazepine antagonist available for clinical use. It is a specific competitive antagonist at benzodiazepine receptors, which are associated with receptors for gamma-aminobutyric acid, the most important inhibitory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. Administered orally, it has a low bioavailability and the preferred route is intravenous. Its usual clinical role is to reverse the effects of benzodiazepine sedation; however, administered before, or with, other benzodiazepines, it modifies their effects, the extent of such modification depending on the dose, duration of effect and relative receptor affinity of the agonist. Flumazenil also reverses adverse physiological effects of benzodiazepines. Its indications include reversal of benzodiazepine-induced sedation, termination of benzodiazepine-induced anaesthesia, return of spontaneous respiration and consciousness in intensive care patients and the treatment of paradoxical reactions to benzodiazepines. Other potential indications include its use in hepatic encephalopathy, alcohol intoxication and coma; however, these claims still require substantiation. Following sedation reversed with flumazenil, minimal residual effects of the agonist can sometimes be detected using psychomotor tests and are due to the relatively short half-life of flumazenil, but are of no clinical consequence. There is concern that flumazenil could precipitate an acute withdrawal syndrome following long-term benzodiazepine administration; however, the available evidence suggests otherwise and that it could be useful in the treatment of benzodiazepine tolerance. The existence of flumazenil is important, with implications for future research and the development of minimally invasive therapy and day-case surgery. With increasing pressures on non-anaesthetically trained practitioners to perform sedation, flumazenil has important implications for safety.