Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0043352 (xerostomia)
 4,250 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

The chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical efficacy of nefazodone hydrochloride, a new antidepressant, are described. Nefazodone enhances serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT]) synaptic transmission by acting as an antagonist at 5-HT2 receptors and by inhibiting the reuptake of 5-HT. These two mechanisms combined may enhance 5-HT1A-mediated transmission. In addition, nefazodone weakly inhibits the reuptake of norepinephrine. Nefazodone is a structural analogue of trazodone but is pharmacologically distinct. In placebo-controlled trials, nefazodone was as effective as imipramine for the treatment of major depression and produced clinical benefits in patients with depression-related anxiety and sleep disturbances. More than 2000 patients have received nefazodone in clinical trials. The most commonly reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are asthenia, somnolence, dry mouth, nausea, constipation, dizziness, lightheadedness, confusion, abnormal vision, and blurred vision. The incidence of sexual-dysfunction ADRs may be less than that reported for other antidepressants. Nefazodone does not inhibit rapid-eye movement sleep. Nefazodone, an inhibitor of the hepatic P-450 isoenzyme CYP3A4, may increase concentrations of drugs metabolized by this isoenzyme, such as terfenadine, astemizole, triazolam, alprazolam, and midazolam. Caution should be exercised in administering nefazodone hydrochloride with triazolobenzodiazepines, and coadministration with terfenadine or astemizole is contra-indicated. The dosage should start at 100 mg twice daily and then be increased, depending on occurrence of ADRs and the patient's clinical response, to 300-600 mg daily. In elderly or debilitated patients, the initial dosage should be half the usual dosage. Nefazodone hydrochloride is as effective as other available antidepressants and may cause fewer ADRs.
 ...
PMID:Nefazodone: a new antidepressant. 889 78

Approximately 20 million patients suffer from major depressive disorder each year, indicating a need for antidepressant agents that are synonymous with effectiveness, tolerability and patient compliance. The authors examined the effects of fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, in the treatment of outpatients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive disorder. A randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo- and imipramine-controlled single center study was conducted in 150 outpatients. Patients were randomized to receive up to 150 mg/day of fluvoxamine as a single bedtime dose, 240 mg/day of imipramine on a twice-daily (BID) schedule, or placebo for six weeks. Efficacy measurements included HAM-D, MADRS, CGI, Raskin-Covi and SCL-56 scales. The HAM-D total score indicated that both active treatment groups showed significantly (p < or = 0.05) greater therapeutic benefit than did placebo. Severely depressed patients (HAM-D > or = 30) responded better to fluvoxamine in five of six measures. Side-effects from fluvoxamine were similar to those reported for other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (nausea, somnolence) and were well tolerated. Imipramine was associated with anticholinergic effects such as dry mouth and dizziness. The pharmacokinetic properties of fluvoxamine which allow the drug to be administered as a single daily dose should aid in the maintenance of patient compliance, while offering significant clinical benefit in the improvement of depressive symptoms.
 ...
PMID:Fluvoxamine versus imipramine and placebo: a double-blind comparison in depressed patients. 880 49

One hundred and sixty-three patients with major depression were randomly assigned to treatment with mirtazapine or doxepin for 6 weeks in a double-blind clinical trial. Initially, patients received mirtazapine 20 mg/day or doxepin 75 mg/day; dosages were then titrated up to a maximum of 60 mg/day and 300 mg/day, respectively. Both drugs produced considerable improvement in depressive symptoms with no statistically significant differences between the two patient groups. In the mirtazapine group only two patients prematurely terminated the study due to adverse drug experiences, as compared to six in the doxepin-treated group. Moreover, doxepin-treated patients complained more frequently of dry mouth and movement disorders. In conclusion, mirtazapine is an effective treatment for major depression and appears to offer advantages in tolerability over doxepin.
 ...
PMID:A double-blind study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and doxepin in patients with major depression. 899 95

Cardiovascular adverse effects are amongst the most serious observed with antidepressant drugs and are often due to effects on cardiac conduction and refractoriness. However, such electrophysiologic effects may not be evident when using conventional electrocardiographic measures. Forty patients with major depressive disorder (according to DSM-III-R criteria) were enrolled in a 6-week double-blind parallel group study of fluoxetine (N = 20) or doxepin (N = 20). Cardiac conduction (QRS duration) and repolarization (corrected QT interval, QTc), were measured using signal-averaged electrocardiograms and 12-lead electrocardiogram at baseline and after 2, 4, and 6 weeks of treatment. Patients taking doxepin (mean daily dosage at 6 weeks 169 +/- 42 mg) were similar to those taking fluoxetine (37 +/- 18 mg) for demographic variables and improvement in depression scores but volunteered more side effects (p = 0.011), especially dry mouth (p < 0.001) and dizziness/lightheadedness (p = 0.005). After 6 weeks, doxepin increased heart rate (69 +/- 12 to 81 +/- 13 beats per minute; p = 0.0003) and prolonged QTc (from 417 +/- 36 to 439 +/- 28 msec; p < 0.03); overall QRS duration was not prolonged but was correlated with serum doxepin concentrations (r = 0.78, p < 0.0001). Fluoxetine had no effect on QTc (428 +/- 24 msec at baseline vs. 430 +/- 24 msec at 6 weeks) or QRS duration (97 +/- 12 msec at baseline vs. 94 +/- 12 msec at 6 weeks). The standard 12-lead electrocardiogram showed no significant change in QRS or QTc for either drug. Using a sensitive measure of electrocardiographic effects, doxepin prolongs repolarization and may slow cardiac conduction. Fluoxetine has no measurable electrocardiographic effects, which suggests an increased safety margin for cardiac adverse effects. The ability of the signal-averaged electrocardiogram to resolve small changes in the electrocardiogram is useful in the assessment of drugs with subtle electrophysiologic effects.
 ...
PMID:Electrocardiographic effects of fluoxetine and doxepin in patients with major depressive disorder. 900 52

The objective of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of moclobemide versus fluoxetine in adult patients with major depressive disorder. The design of the study was a multicenter, double-blind, comparative, and randomized trial. A 1- to 2-week single-blind placebo washout phase was followed by 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with moclobemide or fluoxetine. A total of 150 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 128 patients eligible to be randomized, with 66 patients receiving moclobemide and 62 patients receiving fluoxetine. At the termination of the study, patients in the moclobemide group were receiving a mean dose of 440 mg +/- 123 mg, while the mean dose in the fluoxetine group was 35 mg +/- 8 mg. No significant treatment differences were found for any of the efficacy parameters. Headache and nausea were the most frequently reported adverse events in both treatment groups. Headache and blurred vision were reported significantly more often (P < 0.05) in the fluoxetine group, whereas significantly more dry mouth was reported (P < 0.05) in the moclobemide group. These results provide supporting evidence of the comparable efficacy of moclobemide and fluoxetine and the better tolerability of moclobemide when used in the treatment of major depressive disorder.
 ...
PMID:Moclobemide versus fluoxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder in adults. 907 6

Nefazodone hydrochloride is a phenylpiperazine antidepressant with a mechanism of action that is distinct from those of other currently available drugs. It potently and selectively blocks postsynaptic serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) 5-HT2A receptors and moderately inhibits serotonin and noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake. In short term clinical trials of 6 or 8 weeks' duration, nefazodone produced clinical improvements that were significantly greater than those with placebo and similar to those achieved with imipramine, and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fluoxetine, paroxetine and sertraline. The optimum therapeutic dosage of nefazodone appears to be between 300 and 600 mg/day. Limited long term data suggest that nefazodone is effective in preventing relapse of depression in patients treated for up to 1 year. Analyses of pooled clinical trial results indicate that nefazodone and imipramine produces similar and significant improvements on anxiety- and agitation-related rating scales compared with placebo in patients with major depression. Short term tolerability data indicate that nefazodone has a lower incidence of adverse anticholinergic, antihistaminergic and adrenergic effects than imipramine. Compared with SSRIs, nefazodone causes fewer activating symptoms, adverse gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhoea, anorexia) and adverse effects on sexual function, but is associated with more dizziness, dry mouth, constipation, visual disturbances and confusion. Available data also suggest that nefazodone is not associated with abnormal weight gain, seizures, priapism or significant sleep disruption, and appears to be relatively safe in overdosage. Nefazodone inhibits the cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme and thus has the potential to interact with a number of drugs. Further long term and comparative studies will provide a more accurate assessment of the relative place of nefazodone in the management of major depression. Nonetheless, available data suggest that nefazodone is a worthwhile treatment alternative to tricyclic antidepressants and SSRIs in patients with major depression.
 ...
PMID:Nefazodone. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in the management of major depression. 921 Oct 88

A 6-week, randomised, double-blind, multicentre study in 256 patients with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of major depression was carried out to compare the selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (NARI), reboxetine, with the reference standard tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine. The efficacy of reboxetine, as measured by the extent of improvement of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Scale, was similar to that of imipramine. The improvement was observed in the overall population and in severely depressed and melancholic patients. Reboxetine tolerability compared favourably with that of imipramine. Frequency of discontinuation due to adverse events was lower in the reboxetine-treated group (10.0%) than in the imipramine-treated group (14.3%), and the cumulative risk of development (Kaplan-Meier analysis) of dry mouth, hypotension and/or related symptoms and tremor was significantly higher on imipramine than on reboxetine.
 ...
PMID:Efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine compared with imipramine in a double-blind study in patients suffering from major depressive offsodes. 916 9

Major depressive disorder and dysthymia are twice as prevalent in women as in men, and the lifetime risk of a woman's developing a major depressive disorder is about 20%. Yet depression is often unrecognized or misdiagnosed in women, and only about one quarter of women who meet criteria for major depressive disorder receive appropriate therapy. Until recently, women were generally excluded from clinical drug trials because of concerns of inadvertent pregnancy and risk of teratogenicity. Thus, information on safety and efficacy in those most likely to require antidepressant therapy is lacking. Studies have shown that the antidepressant fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) has a more tolerable side effect profile than do tricyclic amine (TCA) antidepressants, but few data have been reported on the efficacy and tolerability of fluoxetine or other SSRIs in female patients. In this study, a retrospective analysis of 11 randomized, double-blind, well-controlled trials was done to compare data from 427 female patients on fluoxetine and 423 female patients on TCAs. Both fluoxetine and TCAs significantly reduced the HAMD17 total mean score from baseline to end point, week 5 (fluoxetine, 24.35 to 14.37; TCAs, 24.57 to 14.43; p < 0.001). Both treatment groups were associated with significant reductions in the HAMD17 anxiety/somatization and insomnia subfactor scores. Abnormal vision, constipation, dizziness, dry mouth, and somnolence occurred more frequently (p < 0.05) in the TCA group. Insomnia and nausea were the only adverse events more common (p < 0.05) in the fluoxetine group. This study demonstrates that fluoxetine is an effective and tolerable agent for the treatment of major depressive disorder in women.
 ...
PMID:Fluoxetine vs. tricyclic antidepressants in women with major depressive disorder. 920 68

Milnacipran is a new antidepressive drug, a combined noradrenaline/serotonin (NA/5-HT) reuptake inhibitor, which has been suggested to be as effective as and better tolerated than tricyclic antidepressants. Since long-term studies are lacking, we compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of milnacipran and clomipramine in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study setting during 26 weeks of treatment in patients with major depression. A total of 107 patients were treated with either milnacipran (n=52) or clomipramine (n=55). Due to active treatment of duration less than 12 days in four patients and protocol deviation in one patient, in total 47 milnacipran-treated patients were eligible for efficacy analysis. Nine patients in the clomipramine group continued on active treatment for less than 12 days. Thus 46 clomipramine-treated patients were finally included in the efficacy analysis. After 1 week of dose escalation, there was a fixed dosage regimen of either milnacipran (200 mg daily) or clomipramine (150 mg daily) during weeks 2 to 10, followed by flexible dosing of milnacipran (100, 150 or 200 mg daily) or clomipramine (75, 100 or 150 mg daily) during weeks 11 to 26. A total of 53 patients (49%) completed the 26-week study period; 21% (11/52) of the patients in the milnacipran group and 38% (21/55) of the patients in the clomipramine group discontinued their medication prematurely due to adverse events, whereas 19% (10/52) of those on milnacipran and 7% (4/55) of those on clomipramine treatment withdrew due to either lack of efficacy or clinical deterioration. The mean change (+/-SD) in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score between the baseline and the last rating ranged from 23.7+/-3.1 to 12.0+/-9.5 in the milnacipran-treated patients and from 23.1+/-3.5 to 8.0+/-8.5 in the clomipramine-treated patients, revealing a significant difference in favour of clomipramine. In total 58% of the milnacipran-treated patients vs. 72% of the clomipramine-treated patients showed a > or = 50% reduction in their baseline HAMD scores and 45% vs. 63% had an HAMD score of < or = 7 at the last rating, respectively. Moreover, the time to the onset of the antidepressant action (defined as > or = 50% reduction of the baseline HAMD score) showed a significant difference in favour of clomipramine. In addition, clomipramine was significantly more efficacious in patients with a baseline HAMD score of > or = 24 as evidenced by the analysis of the HAMD score at week 6 and at the last rating. The Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale did not show significant differences between the treatment groups. The safety analysis did not reveal any differences of clinical significance in cardiovascular variables between the study drugs. Dry mouth was significantly less frequently reported by the milnacipran-treated patients during the early and later phases (weeks 6 to 26) of the study, while insomnia was more common in the milnacipran group during weeks 1 to 6. In conclusion, milnacipran appeared to be less effective than clomipramine in the long-term treatment of depression. The side-effects of the drugs differed to a certain extent, and milnacipran tended to be somewhat better tolerated than clomipramine.
 ...
PMID:Long-term efficacy and safety of milnacipran compared to clomipramine in patients with major depression. 942 48

This 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine as first-line therapy for the treatment of major depression and major depression associated with anxiety in 384 adult outpatients. Fixed total daily dosages of 75, 150, and 200 mg of venlafaxine were administered in a twice-a-day regimen. Primary efficacy parameters were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score, the HAM-D Depressed Mood Item, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale. Overall, a higher percentage of patients responded to venlafaxine than to placebo. Efficacy data indicated a dose-related response, most evident in the onset of clinical improvement; statistically significant improvements in some primary parameters were seen as early as 1 to 2 weeks after initiation of treatment, especially in the 150-and 200-mg/day groups. These dose-related clinical improvements continued through week 12. Venlafaxine-treated patients who had depression associated with anxiety showed significant dose-related improvements compared with placebo-treated patients; improvement was noted by scores on the HAM-D Anxiety-Psychic Item and Anxiety-Somatization Factor. Few clinically significant changes were observed in laboratory values, vital signs, or electrocardiogram tracings. Venlafaxine was generally well tolerated at all dosages. The most common study events included nausea, dizziness, somnolence, insomnia, dry mouth, and asthenia, which are consistent with findings of previous studies. The current study demonstrated that 75 to 200 mg/day of venlafaxine twice daily produced a dose-related improvement in the primary efficacy parameters and in the onset of significant antidepressant effects, which was noted at weeks 1 to 2 with the highest dosage tested (200 mg/day). The study also demonstrated that these dosages of venlafaxine were safe and effective as first-line therapy for major depression and depression associated with anxiety.
 ...
PMID:The use of venlafaxine in the treatment of major depression and major depression associated with anxiety: a dose-response study. Venlafaxine Investigator Study Group. 947 38


<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>