Fluoxetine-clonazepam cotherapy for anxious depression: an exploratory, post-hoc analysis of a randomized, double blind study.

Anxious depression, defined as major depressive disorder (MDD) accompanied by high levels of anxiety, seems to be both common and difficult to treat, with antidepressant monotherapy often yielding modest results. We sought to examine the relative benefits of antidepressant-anxiolytic cotherapy versus antidepressant monotherapy for patients with anxious depression versus without anxious depression. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of an existing dataset (N=80), from a 3-week, randomized, double-blind trial which demonstrated cotherapy with fluoxetine and clonazepam to result in superior efficacy than fluoxetine monotherapy in MDD. The present analysis involved examining whether anxious depression status served as a predictor and moderator of symptom improvement. Anxious depression status was not found to predict symptom improvement, or serve as a moderator of clinical improvement to cotherapy versus monotherapy. However, the advantage in remission rates in favor of cotherapy versus monotherapy was, numerically, much larger for patients with anxious depression (32.2%) than it was for patients without anxious MDD (9.7%). The respective number needed to treat statistic for these two differences in response rates were, approximately, one in three for patients with anxious depression versus one in 10 for patients without anxious depression. The efficacy of fluoxetine-clonazepam cotherapy compared with fluoxetine monotherapy was numerically but not statistically enhanced for patients with anxious depression than those without anxious depression.

Is extended clonazepam cotherapy of fluoxetine effective for outpatients with major depression?

BACKGROUND: Clonazepam cotherapy of fluoxetine was previously demonstrated to accelerate efficacy over the first 3 weeks of treatment. A new 18-week double-blind study attempted to replicate these findings to determine whether superiority would extend to 3 months and assess risks of extension. METHOD: Fifty outpatient volunteers aged 18-65 from Seattle and Portland with moderate-marked depression received fluoxetine (20 mg) doubled at 6 weeks if needed; half took clonazepam (0.5 mg) and half took an identical placebo, 1 or 2 tablets adjusted during the first 2 weeks, until a 3-week taper at 3 months. RESULTS: No serious adverse events and no special problems with sedation or discontinuation were noted. Cotherapy was superior to fluoxetine monotherapy at Day 7 for HAM-D (t=2.03, df=48, P<0.05) and CGI-I (32 vs. 4% responders, P<0.03, Fisher Exact Test) but not otherwise. Cotherapy was effective in reducing insomnia but not anxiety or core symptoms (low mood, suicidality, reduced interest). The only significant benefit of extending treatment was a more rapid response to increased fluoxetine at 6 weeks manifested in a mean HAM-D of 9.0 and CGI-I responder rate of 76% after 8 weeks compared to 16 weeks for monotherapy. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size (N=50) limited power and rendered conclusions tentative. CONCLUSIONS: Extended clonazepam cotherapy of fluoxetine appeared safe and effective for depressed outpatients: it was superior to fluoxetine alone early in treatment and again following fluoxetine dose increase. Cotherapy might be considered at the start of fluoxetine treatment, especially for those with insomnia, and when a dose increase of fluoxetine is anticipated.

Assessing benefits of the pain center: why some patients regress.

Pain centers meet success in dealing with many cases of chronic pain which had been refractory to other therapies. Unfortunately, about one-fourth of all patients who initially do well begin to deteriorate shortly after completion, and within a few months have regressed to pre-treatment levels. In an effort to understand the causes of this regression, the authors surveyed patients who completed the program in 1977 by means of mail questionnaire. The 25 most successful patients were contrasted with an equal cohort of failures (i.e., patients who had met with initial success and subsequent regression). Correlations were also performed among indices of change and other variables. The failure group demonstrated less incentive for maintaining their gains, most continuing to receive financial compensation for their pain. Differences in attitude were revealed, with the failure group more likely to assume a dependent, passive stance. Depression was more characteristic of the failure group and may be causative with respect to deterioration. Most strinkingly, it appeared that the failure group had done little to change their environments, and continued to find reinforcement for pain behavior following discharge. The survey suggests the need for changes in the area of employment for injured workers, as well as further research in attitude measurement and attitude change. More aggressive treatment of depression might reduce the tendency toward regression, as would increased effort to change family dynamics that reward the patient for overt suffering.