A pilot study of impulsivity and compulsivity in pathological gambling.

We examined the relationship between gambling severity, impulsivity and obsessionality/compulsivity in 38 pathological gamblers, representing the complete Minnesota sample of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of paroxetine for the treatment of pathological gambling (PG), using Pearson correlations and linear regression models at baseline and treatment endpoint. At baseline, Pathological Gambling Modification of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (PG-YBOCS) scores correlated significantly with those of the Eysenck Impulsiveness Questionnaire (EIQ) Impulsiveness subscale and Padua Inventory (PI) factors I and IV (corresponding to impaired control over mental and motor activities, respectively). None of the associations between PI factors and the PG-YBOCS were significant after adjusting for Impulsiveness scores. There were no differences in changes in the PG-YBOCS between the paroxetine and placebo group. Changes in PG-YBOCS scores after treatment correlated with changes in Impulsiveness scores. These changes appeared independent of paroxetine treatment. The results suggest that, although PG exhibits features of both obsessionality/compulsivity and impulsivity and elements of both decrease with treatment, impulsivity predominates and changes in gambling severity are most associated with changes in impulsivity.

Patterns of concomitant psychotropic medication use during a 2-year study comparing clozapine and olanzapine for the prevention of suicidal behavior.

BACKGROUND: Results from the International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT) indicate that clozapine is more effective than olanzapine in reducing suicidal behavior in schizophrenic and schizoaffective patients. However, because InterSePT allowed the uncontrolled use of concomitant psychotropic medications (CPMs), it is possible that the antisuicidal effect of clozapine may have been influenced by greater use of such agents. This article describes the use patterns of CPMs during InterSePT and examines whether CPM use may have affected study outcome. METHOD: In this study, 479 patients received clozapine and 477 patients received olanzapine. Concomitant psychotropic medications were grouped into 4 classes: antipsychotics, antidepressants, sedatives/anxiolytics, and mood stabilizers. The doses of each CPM were converted into dosage equivalents of standard reference drugs. An analysis of covariance was performed to compare mean daily doses of CPMs between the 2 groups over the 2-year treatment period. The duration of treatment for each patient was 2 years, with the first patient entering the study in March 1998 and the last patient completing treatment in February 2001. RESULTS: Approximately 90% of patients in both treatment groups received at least 1 CPM. The mean +/- SD number of CPMs per patient was 3.8 +/- 2.90 in the clozapine group and 4.2 +/- 3.16 in the olanzapine group. For each CPM class, the mean daily dose was statistically significantly lower in the clozapine group (antipsychotics, p <.001; antidepressants, p <.01; sedatives/anxiolytics, p <.001; mood stabilizers, p <.05). Analyses of CPM use by study intervals, suicide attempters versus nonattempters, study completers versus noncompleters, and geographic region resulted in similar findings. CONCLUSION: The results support the conclusion that the effects of clozapine in reducing the risk of suicidal behavior derive from its intrinsic pharmacology and not from the influence of concomitant psychotropic medications.

Comparison between paroxetine and behaviour therapy in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): A pilot study.

Antidepressants and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) have been reported to decrease severity of psychopathology in PTSD-patients. To date, no study has been carried out which compares psychopharmacolo-gical and psychotherapeutic treatments. In a randomized pilot study, PTSD-patients were treated either with paroxetine or CBT. Diagnoses were made by structured clinical interviews (ADIS, CAPS). The duration of treatment was 3 months; the paroxetine dosage was 10-50 mg; exposure and cognitive restructuring were the main elements in cognitive-behavioural therapy. Twenty-one patients were included. Drop-outs in both groups occurred within the first 2 weeks. Paroxetine and CBT significantly decreased PTSD-symptoms (CAPS) as well as concurrent depression (MADRS) after 3 months treatment. At 6 month follow-up, symptoms of PTSD had slightly increased in the paroxetine group and further decreased in the cognitive-behavioural therapy group. (Int J Psych Clin Pract 2004; 8: 19-23).

Paroxetine treatment of pathological gambling: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial.

Previous studies have suggested the efficacy of serotonergic agents in the treatment of pathological gambling. The aim of the present study was to determine whether treatment with paroxetine in a large sample of subjects with pathological gambling would effectively diminish the severity of gambling symptoms. A 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at five outpatient academic research centres in two countries (USA and Spain). Seventy-six outpatients (mean age 45.4+/-10.6 years; 30 women, 46 men) with pathological gambling were randomized to acute treatment with paroxetine in flexible daily dosages of 10-60 mg/day (n=36) or placebo (n=40). The primary outcome measure was the Clinical Global Impressions scale. Both the paroxetine- and the placebo-treated groups demonstrated comparable improvement at 16 weeks (59% response rate in the paroxetine group, 49% rate in the placebo group; chi squared=0.737; d.f.=1; P=0.390). Paroxetine consistently resulted in a greater percentage of responders at each study visit compared to placebo but failed to demonstrate statistical superiority to placebo on scores on the Clinical Global Impressions scale, the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale Modified for Pathological Gambling, or the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale. High rates of symptom improvement were observed in pathological gamblers receiving either paroxetine or placebo after 16 weeks. Paroxetine consistently demonstrated an advantage over placebo on the Clinical Global Impressions scale; however, a larger sample size may have registered significant differences.

Paroxetine treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of two fixed doses of paroxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. METHOD: Outpatients (N=566) with generalized anxiety disorder and no other axis I disorder were eligible if they scored >/=20 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (with a score of 2 or higher on the anxious mood and tension items). Following a 1-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with paroxetine, 20 or 40 mg/day, or placebo. The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline in total score on the Hamilton anxiety scale. Response was defined as a rating of "very much improved" or "much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression global improvement measure; remission was defined as a Hamilton anxiety scale score

A double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of paroxetine in the treatment of pathological gambling.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in the treatment of pathological gambling. METHOD: Patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling and scoring > or = 5 on the South Oaks Gambling Screen were enrolled if no other Axis I disorder was present. A 1-week placebo run-in phase was followed by 8 weeks' treatment with paroxetine or placebo. The initial paroxetine dose of 20 mg/day could be increased after week 2 by 10 mg/week to a maximum of 60 mg/day. Changes in clinical status were assessed using the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS) and the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI). Treatment-emergent symptoms were assessed weekly. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included in an intent-to-treat analysis (N = 23 paroxetine, N = 22 placebo). Statistically significantly greater reductions in the total score of the G-SAS were observed in the paroxetine group compared with the placebo group at weeks 6 through 8 (p = .003, .003, and .042, respectively). Improvement on the CGI was also significantly greater in the paroxetine than in the placebo group at the same timepoints (p = .033, .014, and .025, respectively). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the paroxetine group were responders at weeks 7 and 8 (p = .011 and .010, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results of this trial indicate that paroxetine may be effective in the treatment of pathological gambling. There were no unexpected side effects from this treatment. However, additional studies with larger patient samples and a longer treatment phase are required to establish conclusively the efficacy and safety of paroxetine for this indication.