A controlled trial of adinazolam versus desipramine in geriatric depression.

Thirty outpatients between the ages of 60 and 85 with DSM-III Major Depression entered an 8 week randomized, double-blind comparison of desipramine and adinazolam mesylate, a triazolobenzodiazepine derivative. Outcome was assessed on several measures including the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), the 35-item Self-Rating Symptom Scale, and Carroll Depression Scale. Patients in both groups demonstrated a highly significant decrease in average HDRS scores (p less than 0.001) over the course of the study. Adinazolam was associated with significantly greater reduction in average HDRS scores by the third day. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed a significantly greater reduction in HDRS scores for adinazolam over the course of the study. The study medications were associated with distinct patterns of adverse reactions. Desipramine more often produced dry mouth, constipation and nervousness, while adinazolam was more likely to cause drowsiness and lightheadedness. Three of these elderly patients, all of whom were taking desipramine reported at least one fall during the study. Adinazolam may be a promising agent in the treatment of depression in the elderly.

A comparison of nefazodone, imipramine, and placebo in patients with moderate to severe depression.

In this sample of moderately to severely depressed outpatients, nefazodone therapy proved superior to placebo. Nefazodone therapy was also associated with fewer dropouts from adverse effects than was imipramine. In view of these efficacy findings as well as the promising side effect and safety profile of nefazodone, further research is warranted to evaluate its therapeutic potential in the treatment of depressive illness.

Concurrent diagnostic validity of a structured psychiatric interview.

In order to estimate the concurrent validity of a structured psychiatric interview, we compared interview diagnoses obtained for 101 psychiatric inpatients to those recorded in the same patients' hospital charts. For most diagnoses considered, concordance was found to be high. For those in which concordance was low, we examined the reasons for the diagnostic discrepancy. Diagnostic errors that were judged to have occurred on the basis of the structural interview often seemed to have resulted from a lack of longitudinal clinical observation. However, more errors were judged to have occurred in the hospital charts, apparently because of physician oversight. We conclude that the concurrent validity of this structured interview is high and that such examinations might be useful not only for research but also for the routine initial evaluation of psychiatric patients.

Reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. II. The test/retest reliability of diagnostic classification.

In a study of interrater diagnostic reliability, 101 psychiatric inpatients were independently interviewed by physicians using a structured interview. Newly admitted patients were randomly selected and examined by one of three psychiatrists. A second psychiatrist reexamined the same patient about 24 hours later. Interviews from the two examinations were evaluated independently and diagnoses were made on the basis of objective criteria. The degree of diagnostic agreement for the two examinations were calculated using the kappa statistic. Agreement was found to be high as compared to other studies in the psychiatric literature, despite the fact that in most previous investigations diagnoses were not made independently. The results were also compared to studies of reliability of medical judgments. Possible reasons for the high interrater reliability are discussed and include the use of a structured interview and objective diagnostic criteria.