Venlafaxine versus imipramine in painful polyneuropathy: a randomized, controlled trial. Efficacy of desipramine in painful diabetic neuropathy: a placebo-controlled trial. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of bupropion sustained release in chronic low back pain. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of lamotrigine in combination with other medications for neuropathic pain. [Fluoxetine versus fluvoxamine for treatment of chronic pain]. Venlafaxine extended release in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Desipramine relieves postherpetic neuralgia. Combination of inositol and serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of depression. [Treatment of post-herpes zoster pain with tramadol. Results of an open pilot study versus clomipramine with or without levomepromazine]. Polymorphism of the 5-HT transporter and response to antidepressants: randomised controlled trial. Pregabalin in patients with central neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a flexible-dose regimen. Opioids versus antidepressants in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Randomized trial of opioids versus tricyclic antidepressants for radiation-induced mucositis pain in head and neck cancer. Venlafaxine in neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer. A randomized, within-patient, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial on the efficacy and tolerability of the tricyclic antidepressants chlorimipramine and nortriptyline in central pain. Evaluation of efficacy of the perioperative administration of venlafaxine XR in the prevention of postmastectomy pain syndrome. Cognitive-behavioral therapy versus education and desipramine versus placebo for moderate to severe functional bowel disorders. Inositol addition does not improve depression in SSRI treatment failures. Venlafaxine in the treatment of atypical facial pain: a randomized controlled trial. Venlafaxine in the treatment of children and adolescents with major depression. A randomized, double-blind comparison of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in treatment-resistant depression. Mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablets versus venlafaxine extended release: a double-blind, randomized multicenter trial comparing the onset of antidepressant response in patients with major depressive disorder. Psychotherapy alone and combined with pharmacotherapy in the treatment of depression. The effect of venlafaxine on ongoing and experimentally induced pain in neuropathic pain patients: a double blind, placebo controlled study. Treatment response in antidepressant-naïve postherpetic neuralgia patients: double-blind, randomized trial. Comparison of desipramine and citalopram treatments for depression in Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Gender differences in the efficacy of fluoxetine and maprotiline in depressed patients: a double-blind trial of antidepressants with serotonergic or norepinephrinergic reuptake inhibition profile. A double-blind comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine and placebo in outpatients with major depression. The SSRIs drug Fluoxetine, but not the noradrenergic tricyclic drug Desipramine, improves memory performance during acute major depression. Comparative efficacy of SSRIs and amisulpride in burning mouth syndrome: a single-blind study. Aripiprazole augmentation in major depressive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with inadequate response to antidepressants. Placebo-controlled comparison of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and sertraline. Morphine responsiveness of chronic pain: double-blind randomised crossover study with patient-controlled analgesia. Oral opioid therapy for chronic peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Randomized trial of sertraline versus venlafaxine XR in major depression: efficacy and discontinuation symptoms. A double-blind comparison of escitalopram and venlafaxine extended release in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Venlafaxine in management of hot flashes in survivors of breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Sertraline, paroxetine, and venlafaxine in refugee posttraumatic stress disorder with depression symptoms. Differential effects of trimipramine and fluoxetine on sleep in geriatric depression. A double-blind comparison of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in patients hospitalized for major depression and melancholia. The Venlafaxine French Inpatient Study Group. Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. Dental impaction pain model as a potential tool to evaluate drugs with efficacy in neuropathic pain. Gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. A pilot study investigating the effects of fast left prefrontal rTMS on chronic neuropathic pain. A Randomized controlled trial of venlafaxine ER versus placebo in pediatric social anxiety disorder. Pregabalin for relief of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind study. A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of venlafaxine and dothiepin in geriatric patients with major depression. A randomized controlled trial of acupuncture added to usual treatment for fibromyalgia. Pain relief by rTMS: differential effect of current flow but no specific action on pain subtypes. Compliance with antidepressant medication in the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care: a randomized comparison of fluoxetine and a tricyclic antidepressant. 200 mg daily of lamotrigine has no analgesic effect in neuropathic pain: a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Efficacy and safety of tianeptine in the treatment of depressive disorders in comparison with fluoxetine. Gabapentin in neuropathic pain syndromes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Phase III placebo-controlled trial of capsaicin cream in the management of surgical neuropathic pain in cancer patients. Double-blind, randomized trial of bupropion SR for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Oxcarbazepine in painful diabetic neuropathy: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.
Tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) are often used in the treatment of painful polyneuropathy. Venlafaxine is a serotonin and weak noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor antidepressant with a different profile of other pharmacologic actions from those of TCA.
                To test if venlafaxine would relieve painful polyneuropathy and compare its possible efficacy with that of the TCA imipramine.
                The study design was randomized, double blind, and placebo controlled, with a three-way crossover. Forty patients were assigned to one of the treatment sequences, and 29 completed all three study periods. The daily doses were venlafaxine 225 mg and imipramine 150 mg. During the three treatment periods, each of 4 weeks' duration, patients rated pain paroxysms, constant pain, and touch- and pressure-evoked pain by use of 0- to 10-point numeric rating scales.
                The sum of the individual pain scores during treatment week 4 was lower on venlafaxine (80% of baseline score; p = 0.006) and imipramine (77%; p = 0.001) than on placebo (100%) and did not show any statistical difference between venlafaxine and imipramine (p = 0.44). The individual pain scores for pain paroxysms, constant pain, and pressure-evoked pain showed a similar pattern, whereas touch-evoked pain was uncommon and was not altered by any of the drugs. Numbers needed to treat to obtain one patient with moderate or better pain relief were 5.2 for venlafaxine and 2.7 for imipramine.
                Venlafaxine relieves pain in polyneuropathy and may be as effective as imipramine. Although amitriptyline relieves pain in many patients with painful diabetic neuropathy, side effects often preclude effective treatment. Desipramine has the least anticholinergic and sedative effects of the first generation tricyclic antidepressants. We compared a 6 week course of desipramine (mean dose, 201 mg/day) to active placebo in 20 patients with painful diabetic neuropathy in a double-blind crossover trial. Pain relief with desipramine was statistically significant in weeks 5 and 6. Eleven patients reported at least moderate relief with desipramine, compared to 2 with placebo. Pain relief tended to be greater in depressed patients, but relief was also observed in patients who did not show an antidepressant effect. We conclude that desipramine relieves pain in many patients with painful diabetic neuropathy, offering an alternative for patients unable to tolerate amitriptyline. Blockade of norepinephrine reuptake, an action shared by desipramine, amitriptyline, and other antidepressants proven effective in neuropathic pain, may mediate this analgesic effect. Clinical trials of the efficacy of antidepressant drugs in patients with chronic low back pain have had mixed results, possibly because of the different mechanisms of action of the drugs that have been studied. Because bupropion has a mechanism of action that differs from other antidepressants and has shown efficacy in neuropathic pain, a randomized, placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover trial was conducted to evaluate its efficacy in subjects with chronic low back pain. The primary efficacy variable was mean daily diary pain intensity ratings, and secondary pain intensity and relief outcomes included weekly pain intensity ratings, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) Present Pain Intensity scale, pain relief ratings, and satisfaction with pain relief ratings. Adverse events were also assessed throughout the trial. Analyses were performed of an intention-to-treat sample of 44 patients, only 3 of whom met criteria for neuropathic low back pain. Daily and weekly pain intensity ratings, the MPQ Present Pain Intensity scale, and pain relief ratings were not significantly different following treatment with bupropion sustained release (SR) vs. placebo. These results suggest that bupropion SR was not significantly better than placebo in the treatment of patients with non-neuropathic chronic low back pain.
                Antidepressant medications that have both noradrenergic and serotonergic effects appear to have greater efficacy in patients with chronic low back pain than those with only serotonergic activity. We studied bupropion because it inhibits the reuptake of both norepinephrine and dopamine, but found no evidence of efficacy in patients with non-neuropathic chronic low back pain. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine added to gabapentin, a tricyclic antidepressant, or a nonopioid analgesic in patients whose neuropathic pain was inadequately controlled with these medications. Patients with neuropathic pain from diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic/surgical nerve injury, incomplete spinal cord injury, trigeminal neuralgia, multiple sclerosis, or HIV-associated peripheral neuropathy, who had a mean weekly pain score > or =4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale, were randomized to receive a flexible dose of lamotrigine 200, 300, or 400mg daily (n=111) or placebo (n=109) for up to 14 weeks (including eight weeks of dose escalation) in addition to their prestudy regimen of gabapentin, a tricyclic antidepressant, or a nonopioid analgesic. No statistically significant difference in the mean change in pain-intensity score from baseline to Week 14 (primary endpoint) was detected between lamotrigine and placebo (P=0.67). Differences between lamotrigine and placebo were not statistically significant for secondary efficacy assessments, including mean changes from baseline in the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Neuropathic Pain Scale, rescue medication use, and the percentages of patients rated as much improved or very much improved at the end of treatment on the Clinician Global Impression of Change scale and the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. Lamotrigine was generally well tolerated. Lamotrigine (up to 400 mg/day) added to gabapentin, a tricyclic antidepressant, or a nonopioid analgesic did not demonstrate efficacy as an adjunctive treatment of neuropathic pain but was generally safe and well tolerated. This study aimed: 1) to compare the analgesic efficacy and profile of two antidepressants with the same mechanism of action (SSRI: selective serotonine reuptake inhibitors): fluoxetine vs fluvoxamine; 2) to investigate the relationship between analgesic efficacy and antidepressant effects in both drugs; 3) to evaluate the relationship between the analgesic profile and the quality (global or neuropathic) of pain.
                Fifty-three depressed patients were randomly treated with 20 mg/die of fluoxetine and 100 mg/die of fluvoxamine for chronic pain. Forty subjects (20 with fluoxetine and 20 with fluvoxamine) completed the 2-month study and were followed up on day 14, 28 and 56 of treatment. The intensity and quality of pain was assessed using Quid and depression-anxiety symptoms with the Hamilton Rating Scale (HAMD).
                The intensity and overall quality of pain deteriorated at day 14 in the fluvoxamine group and improved in those treated with fluoxetine. However, a comparable level of analgesia was achieved with both drugs at 2 months. After 2 weeks the neuropathic component of pain improved in patients treated with fluvoxamine. The improvement in pain observed in patients treated with fluoxetine depended on an improvement in depressive symptoms, whereas this relationship was not observed in the fluvoxamine group.
                Although a comparable level of analgesia was observed after two months of treatment, the two drugs show different analgesic profiles. Their analgesic action appears to depend on different mechanisms. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 6 weeks of venlafaxine extended-release (ER) (75 mg and 150-225 mg) treatment in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study included 244 adult outpatients with metabolically stable type 1 or 2 diabetes with painful diabetic neuropathy. Primary efficacy measures were scores on the daily 100 mm Visual Analog Pain Intensity (VAS-PI) and Pain Relief (VAS-PR) scales. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement, Patient Global Rating of Pain Relief, and percentage of patients achieving 50% reduction in pain intensity. Baseline pain intensity was 68.7 mm (moderately severe). At week 6, the percentage reduction from baseline in VAS-PI was 27% (placebo), 32% (75 mg), and 50% (150-225 mg; P < 0.001 vs placebo). Mean VAS-PR scores in the 150-225 mg group were significantly greater than placebo at week 6 (44 vs 60 mm; P < 0.001). The number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain intensity reduction with venlafaxine ER 150-225 mg was 4.5 at week 6. Nausea and somnolence were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. Seven patients on venlafaxine had clinically important ECG changes during treatment. Venlafaxine ER appears effective and safe in relieving pain associated with diabetic neuropathy. NNT values for higher dose venlafaxine ER are comparable to those of tricyclic antidepressants and the anticonvulsant gabapentin. Desipramine has the least anticholinergic and sedative effects of the first generation tricyclic antidepressant agents, but its pain-relieving potential has received little study. Other antidepressant agents--notably amitriptyline--are known to ameliorate postherpetic neuralgia, but those agents are often toxic. In a randomized double-blind crossover design, we gave 26 postherpetic neuralgia patients 6 weeks of treatment with desipramine (mean dose, 167 mg/day) and placebo. Nineteen patients completed both treatments; 12 reported at least moderate relief with desipramine and two reported relief with placebo. Pain relief with desipramine was statistically significant from weeks 3 to 6. Psychiatric interview at entry into the study produced a diagnosis of depression for 4 patients; pain relief was similar in depressed and nondepressed patients and was statistically significant in the nondepressed group alone. We conclude that desipramine administration relieves postherpetic neuralgia and that pain relief is not mediated by mood elevation. Blockade of norepinephrine reuptake, an action shared by desipramine, amitriptyline, and other antidepressant agents that have relieved neuropathic pain, may be involved in relief of postherpetic neuralgia. Inositol has been reported to be an effective treatment in depression, and we hypothesized that inositol addition might enhance or speed up response to serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRI).
                Twenty-seven depressed patients completed a double-blind controlled 4-week trial of SSRI plus placebo or SSRI plus inositol. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was used as an assessment tool at baseline, and 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks.
                No significant difference was found between the two treatment groups.
                Previous studies combining different effective antidepressant therapies similarly found no evidence for additive effects [e.g., monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI) plus tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), TCA plus lithium]. By contrast, augmentation by lithium or MAOI after a failed course of antidepressant treatment is effective and should be studied with inositol. To date, no universally applicable recommendations are available for the treatment of patients with postherpetic neuralgia. A mixture of clinical anecdotes, experimental findings and observations from clinical trials form the basis of the medical arsenal for this condition. Tricyclic antidepressants are commonly used, and clinical experience and several investigations have documented their effectiveness. Today, single entity antidepressants, which can be combined with neuroleptics to increase analgesia, are generally recommended for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia. Some authors also recommend the additional administration of an opioid if analgesia is inadequate. Just over a decade ago, opioids were considered ineffective for the treatment of neuropathic pain; however, more recent investigations relating to the use of opioids, primarily in the treatment of nontumour-related chronic pain, have led to a revision of their use in neuropathic pain. Nevertheless, the use of opioid therapy for neurogenic pain remains controversial. Tramadol is a synthetic, centrally acting analgesic with both opioid and nonopioid analgesic activity. The nonopioid component is related to the inhibition of noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake and stimulation of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) release at the spinal level. In this regard, there are parallels with antidepressants, which are believed to potentiate the effect of biogenic amines in endogenous pain-relieving systems. There is evidence that, in tramadol, both mechanisms act synergistically with respect to analgesia. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate, for the first time, the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of tramadol, compared with the antidepressant clomipramine, in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia. If necessary, clomipramine was used in combination with the neuroleptic levomepromazine. The study allowed individualised dosages at predetermined intervals up to a maximum daily dose of tramadol 600mg and clomipramine 100mg, or clomipramine 100mg with or without levomepromazine 100mg. 21 (60%) of 35 randomised patients (> or = 65 years) received the study medication over the 6-week period [tramadol n = 10; clomipramine with or without levomepromazine) n = 11]. After 3 weeks' treatment the dosage in both groups remained almost constant for the rest of the 6-week treatment phase (mean daily dose: tramadol 250 to 290mg; clomipramine 59.1 to 63.6mg). Only 3 patients required the combination of clomipramine and levomepromazine. At the outset, both groups recorded an average pain level of 'moderate' to 'very severe'. In correlation with increasing the study medication, this had decreased to 'slight' by the end of the treatment, when 9 of 10 patients in the tramadol group and of 6 of 11 patients in the clomipramine group retrospectively rated their analgesia as excellent, good or satisfactory. The psychological/physical condition of the patients did not change significantly during tramadol treatment. Sensitivity and depression parameters decreased in the clomipramine group. The incidence of adverse events for all patients was similar in both groups (tramadol 76.5%; clomipramine with or without levomepromazine 83.3%). In conclusion, tramadol would appear to be an interesting therapeutic alternative for pain relief in postherpetic neuralgia, particularly in patients who are not depressed. In clinical practice, tramadol and clomipramine can best be used differentially. For example, tramadol could be the drug of first choice in patients with obvious cardiovascular disease (not an uncommon problem in the > or = 65 year age group) in whom antidepressants are contraindicated, and similarly in patients in whom an antidepressant effect is not required. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED) Antidepressants exhibit a variety of pharmacological actions including inhibition of the serotonin and noradrenaline transporters. We wished to investigate whether genetic variation could be used to target or personalise treatment, in a comparison of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NARIs).
                To test the hypothesis that patients homozygous for the long (insertion) polymorphism of the serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR) have an increased response to SSRI antidepressants but not to NARI antidepressants.
                In an individually randomised, parallel-group controlled trial, people meeting criteria for a depressive episode who were referred by their general practitioner were randomised to receive either citalopram (an SSRI) or reboxetine (an NARI). Randomisation was by means of a remote automated system accessed by telephone. The main outcome was depressive symptoms, measured by Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) total score 6 weeks after randomisation. The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN31345163).
                Altogether 298 participants were randomised to receive citalopram and 303 were randomised to reboxetine. At 6 weeks follow-up, complete data were available for 258 participants taking citalopram and 262 taking reboxetine. We found no evidence to support an influence of 5-HTTLPR on outcome following antidepressant treatment. The interaction term for BDI score at 6 weeks was 0.50 (95% CI -2.04 to 3.03, P = 0.70), which indicated that responses to the SSRI and NARI were similar irrespective of 5-HTTLPR genotype.
                It is unlikely that the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism alone will be clinically useful in predicting response to antidepressants in people with depression. The effective treatment of patients suffering from central neuropathic pain remains a clinical challenge, despite a standard pharmacological approach in combination with anticonvulsants and antidepressants. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effects of pregabalin on pain relief, tolerability, health status, and quality of life in patients with central neuropathic pain caused by brain or spinal cord injuries. At baseline and 4 weeks after the start of treatment subjects were evaluated with standard measures of efficacy: pain intensity measured by visual analog scale, health status (Pain Disability Index and EQ-5D) and quality of life (SF-36). Forty patients received escalating doses of either pregabalin (150, 300, and 600mg/day) or matching placebo capsules. In both groups, patients started with 1 capsule per day (either 150mg of pregabalin or placebo). If pain relief was insufficient, patients were titrated to a higher dose. There was a statistically significant decrease in mean pain score at endpoint for pregabalin treatment, compared with placebo (P=0.016). Follow-up observation showed no significant difference in Pain Disability Index scores between the two groups. The pregabalin group, however, showed a statistically significant improvement for the EQ-5D. Pregabalin treatment led to a significant improvement in the bodily pain domain of the SF36. In the other domains, more favorable scores were reported without reaching statistical significance. Pregabalin, in a flexible-dose regime, produced clinically significant reductions in pain, as well as improvements in health status in patients suffering from severe central neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) provide less than satisfactory pain relief for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and the role of opioids is controversial.
                To compare the analgesic and cognitive effects of opioids with those of TCA and placebo in the treatment of PHN.
                Seventy-six patients with PHN were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Each subject was scheduled to undergo three treatment periods (opioid, TCA, and placebo), approximately 8 weeks' duration each. Doses were titrated to maximal relief or intolerable side effects. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity (0 to 10 scale), pain relief (0 to 100%), and cognitive function. Analyses included patients who provided any pain ratings after having received at least a single dose of a study medication.
                Fifty patients completed two periods, and 44 patients completed all three. Mean daily maintenance doses were morphine 91 mg or methadone 15 mg and nortriptyline 89 mg or desipramine 63 mg. Opioids and TCA reduced pain (1.9 and 1.4) more than placebo (0.2; p < 0.001), with no appreciable effect on any cognitive measure. The trend favoring opioids over TCA fell short of significance (p = 0.06), and reduction in pain with opioids did not correlate with that following TCA. Treatment with opioids and TCA resulted in greater pain relief (38 and 32%) compared with placebo (11%; p < 0.001). More patients completing all three treatments preferred opioids (54%) than TCA (30%; p = 0.02).
                Opioids effectively treat PHN without impairing cognition. Opioids and TCA act via independent mechanisms and with varied individual effect. Patients who receive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer are likely to develop painful mucositis. The pain is characterized by a burning or stinging sensation similar to neuropathic pain sensations. The purpose of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of a tricyclic antidepressant (TC), commonly used in the treatment of neuropathic pain, with the effect of opioids on radiation-induced mucositis pain. Forty-three patients receiving 66-68 Gy external radiation according to the DAHANCA guidelines (the Danish Head and Neck Cancer Study Group) were randomized to either morphine or TC when mucositis pain was insufficiently managed with weak analgesics. Patients with insufficient pain control in either treatment arm received supplementary medication from the opposite treatment arm. Pain was evaluated weekly using a VAS scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. The degree of mucositis and the degree of depression were measured at the same time intervals. Twenty-two patients entered the opioid arm and 21 the TC arm. Two patients in each arm were non-evaluable. VAS pain scores were significantly reduced in the opioid treatment arm one week after randomization (p = 0.01). Eight patients in the TC arm were managed with TC alone, but for 11 patients it was necessary to add morphine. The 20 evaluable patients in the morphine arm required no additional treatment. There were no significant differences in side effects between the two groups. Higher pain scores in the TC arm, but not in the opioid arm, were significantly correlated with higher BDI scores. Some head and neck cancer patients with radiation-induced nucositis pain may have sufficient pain control on TC alone. This might be useful in patients with relative counter-indications to opioid treatment. Amitriptyline effectively relieves neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer. However, adverse effects are a major problem. Venlafaxine has no anticholinergic effects and could have a better compliance. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of venlafaxine in neuropathic pain. The study was a randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of venlafaxine and inactive placebo. The study lasted 10 weeks. The number of tablets (18.75 mg) taken daily was increased by one at a 1 week interval. Pain intensity and pain relief were registered daily by a diary and by a questionnaire and a computer program (Painscreen) on each visit. Adverse effects were evaluated with the diaries and a 10-item list on each visit. Also, anxiety and depression were measured on each visit. Venous blood samples were collected before the treatment and at 4 weeks for the determination of the serum levels of venlafaxine and its three metabolites. Thirteen patients were analysed. The average daily pain intensity as reported in the diary (primary outcome) was not significantly reduced by venlafaxine compared with placebo. However, the average pain relief (diary) and the maximum pain intensity (retrospective assessment by the computer program) were significantly lower with venlafaxine compared with placebo. Anxiety and depression were not affected. Adverse effects did not show significant differences between treatments. The two poor responders had low venlafaxine concentrations whereas the two slow hydroxylizers had high venlafaxine concentrations and excellent pain relief. Thus, higher doses could be used in order to improve pain relief.
                Copyright 2002 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain Antidepressant drugs are increasingly used in the management of chronic pain. They are mainly prescribed for cancer-related pain and central pain, e.g. phantom or stump pain, post-herpetic neuropathy. However, no controlled clinical trials have validated their in either pathology. Thus, physicians still do not know whether antidepressants are really effective and which might be best. It is still debated whether the effect of antidepressants in the management of chronic pain is limited to the amelioration of frequently concomitant depression or extends to pain itself. To verify both the analgesic effect of tricyclic antidepressants, and the possible relationship between their antidepressant effect and the relief of central pain, we carried out a randomized, within-patient (cross-over) placebo-controlled study in patients suffering from central pain. The results clearly indicate the better analgesic effect of tricyclic antidepressants over placebo (p less than 0.0001). Within the antidepressants tested, chlorimipramine, a blocker of serotonin reuptake, is significantly more effective (p less than 0.0001) than notriptyline, a blocker of noradrenaline reuptake. Finally, the antinociceptive effect is independent of the effects of the two drugs on the symptoms of depression. Postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is a neuropathic pain syndrome that may develop following breast surgery. Venlafaxine has been shown to be efficacious in the management of PMPS. The preemptive administration of venlafaxine has been shown to be efficacious in reducing the incidence of neuropathic pain in the rat model. We examined the efficacy of administering either venlafaxine or placebo for two weeks starting the night before surgery to 100 patients scheduled for either partial or radical mastectomy with axillary dissection. Patients were administered PCA morphine for the first 24 hours following surgery and then acetaminophen/oxycodone tablets. Pain scores were recorded at rest and movement on day 1, at 1 month, and at 6 months after surgery. At 6 months postoperatively, the presence of pain in the chest, arm, and axilla; edema; decreased sensation in the operative area; and phantom breast pain were recorded. There was no difference in postoperative opioid use. Pain scores with movement were lower in the venlafaxine group at 6 months. Pain scores at all other time intervals were similar. There was a significant decrease in the incidence of chest wall pain (55% vs. 19%, P = 0.0002), arm pain (45% vs. 17%, P = 0.003), and axilla pain (51% vs. 19%, P = 0.0009) between the control group and the venlafaxine group, respectively. No significant differences were noted between the two groups with regard to edema, phantom pain, or sensory changes. We conclude that the perioperative administration of venlafaxine beginning the night prior to surgery significantly reduces the incidence of PMPS following breast cancer surgery. Studies of antidepressants and psychological treatments in functional bowel disorders (FBD) are methodologically limited. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) against education (EDU) and desipramine (DES) against placebo (PLA) in female patients with moderate to severe FBD (irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, painful constipation, and unspecified FBD). We also evaluated the amenability of clinically meaningful subgroups to these treatments.
                This randomized, comparator-controlled, multicenter trial enrolled 431 adults from the University of North Carolina and the University of Toronto with moderate to severe symptoms of FBD. Participants received psychological (CBT vs. EDU) or antidepressant (DES vs. PLA) treatment for 12 weeks. Clinical, physiologic, and psychosocial assessments were performed before and at the end of treatment.
                The intention-to-treat analysis showed CBT as significantly more effective than EDU (P = 0.0001; responder rate, 70% CBT vs. 37% EDU; number needed to treat [NNT ], 3.1). DES did not show significant benefit over PLA in the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.16; responder rate, 60% DES vs. 47% PLA; NNT, 8.1) but did show a statistically significant benefit in the per-protocol analysis (P = 0.01; responder rate, 73% DES vs. 49% PLA; NNT, 5.2), especially when participants with nondetectable blood levels of DES were excluded (P = 0.002). Improvement was best gauged by satisfaction with treatment. Subgroup analyses showed that DES was beneficial over PLA for moderate more than severe symptoms, abuse history, no depression, and diarrhea-predominant symptoms; CBT was beneficial over EDU for all subgroups except for depression.
                For female patients with moderate to severe FBD, CBT is effective and DES may be effective when taken adequately. Certain clinical subgroups are more or less amenable to these treatments. Some antidepressants, such as Lithium, can augment the antidepressant effect of serotonin selective uptake inhibitors (SSRI) in patients who have failed to respond to SSRI. Inositol has demonstrated antidepressant effects but in a controlled double blind augmentation trial did not improve depression in SSRI treatment failures. To study in a randomized placebo-controlled design the efficacy of the antidepressant venlafaxine, a serotonin and a weak noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, in the treatment of atypical facial pain (AFP).
                The study was a randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of venlafaxine and a placebo. It consisted of 2 treatment periods, each of 4 weeks' duration, separated by a 2-week washout period. Thirty patients suffering from chronic pain who had been diagnosed with AFP after a thorough clinical examination were recruited. Pain intensity and pain relief were registered at 6 visits. Anxiety, depression, and adverse effects were recorded. Venous blood samples were collected at the end of each treatment period for the determination of serum levels of venlafaxine and its metabolites.
                Twenty patients completed the trial. Eight patients discontinued because of adverse effects and 2 patients were excluded because of noncompliance. Two patients completed the trial but were excluded from the analysis because they experienced no pain at the baseline visit. There was no significant difference in pain intensity reduction between the maximum tolerated dose of venlafaxine (75 mg in most cases) and the placebo. Pain relief was significantly greater with venlafaxine than with the placebo treatment. Significantly more escape medication was consumed during the placebo period compared with the venlafaxine period. No significant correlation was found between the serum concentration of the drug and the response to treatment. Anxiety and depression scores did not differ between venlafaxine and placebo treatment. Adverse effects were equally common during both treatments.
                Venlafaxine was only modestly effective in the treatment of AFP. Major depression is commonly found in the child and adolescent population. Venlafaxine, a new antidepressant, has been used successfully in adults; however, its use in children and adolescents has been very limited. This study evaluated the efficacy and side effect profile of venlafaxine in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week study, 33 subjects between the ages of 8 and 17, who met DSM-IV criteria for major depression, were treated with either venlafaxine and therapy or placebo and therapy. Patient progress data were obtained by weekly rating assessments. Data on side effects were also obtained weekly. The statistical analysis indicated a significant improvement over time, but it could not be attributed to venlafaxine drug therapy. These findings are consistent with other studies where the efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of major depression in this age population remains unproven. Low dosage and short length of treatment may account for the lack of efficacy. The findings did, however, suggest a low side-effect profile. Further studies are recommended to assess efficacy and to corroborate its safety in children and adolescents. Based on preliminary evidence of its usefulness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) was examined in comparison with olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in a TRD population. In this 12-week double-blind study, 483 subjects with unipolar, nonpsychotic TRD, with historic failure on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and prospective failure on open-label venlafaxine, were randomized to an OFC or to an olanzapine, fluoxetine, or venlafaxine monotherapy group. Venlafaxine was continued randomly in the double-blind acute phase to explore the benefits of continuation versus switching therapy. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total change score at end point was the primary outcome measure. The OFC group had significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms by week 1 of treatment (MADRS mean change =-7.2, baseline =29.6), in comparison to olanzapine (-4.8, P=.03), fluoxetine (-4.7, P=.03), or venlafaxine (-3.7, P=.002) groups and maintained its statistical separation from all three monotherapy groups through week 6. At end point, the OFC group was significantly different only from the olanzapine group (-14.1 vs. -7.7, P<.001). Analysis of a subgroup of subjects who had an SSRI failure in their current depressive episode (n=334) revealed statistical separation from both olanzapine and fluoxetine (but not venlafaxine) at end point: OFC (-14.6) versus olanzapine (-9.4, P<.001) versus fluoxetine (-10.7, P=.006) versus venlafaxine (-14.7, P=.98). The OFC had a safety profile comparable to its component monotherapies (i.e., olanzapine and fluoxetine), showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect, and was effective in this TRD sample. At the study end point, OFC, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, and low-dose OFC all appeared to be similarly effective. This randomized, multicenter, double-blind study was designed to compare specifically the onset of antidepressant action of mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablets (ODT) with venlafaxine extended-release (XR) formulation in outpatients with major depression. Both treatments were administered in a rapidly escalating dosing regimen. Target doses (mirtazapine ODT, 45 mg OD; venlafaxine XR, 225 mg OD) were reached by day 6 of treatment. On the primary efficacy parameter [the average of the change in HAM-D (17-item) total score on days 5, 8, 11, and 15], mirtazapine ODT was significantly superior to venlafaxine XR (P = 0.008). In addition, calculating the HAM-D score without the sleep items resulted in significant reductions in favor of mirtazapine ODT on days 8 (P = 0.006) and 11 (P = 0.037). The proportion of responders (HAM-D decrease of > or =50% from baseline) was higher in the mirtazapine ODT group on all assessment days, being significant on days 8 (P = 0.002), 11 (P = 0.004), and 22 (P = 0.027). More patients in the mirtazapine ODT group achieved remission (HAM-D total score of < or =7) up to day 29, and the difference was statistically significant on day 15 (P = 0.016). Significant differences in favor of mirtazapine ODT were evident in the CGI of change on days 8 (P = 0.019), 11 (P = 0.004), and 15 (P = 0.031), and the CGI of severity on days 8 (P = 0.014) and 11 (P = 0.033). Both treatments were well tolerated. These results indicate that mirtazapine ODT has a faster onset of antidepressant efficacy than venlafaxine XR in patients with major depressive disorder, and that this effect is independent of its sleep-improving properties. The relative efficacy of psychotherapy and combined therapy in the treatment of depression is still a matter of debate.
                To investigate whether combined therapy has advantages over psychotherapy alone.
                A 6-month randomised clinical trial compared Short Psychodynamic Supportive Psychotherapy (n=106) with combined therapy (n=85) in ambulatory patients with mild or moderate major depressive disorder diagnosed using DSM-IV criteria. Antidepressants were prescribed according to a protocol providing four successive steps in case of intolerance or inefficacy: venlafaxine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, nortriptyline and nortriptyline plus lithium. Efficacy was assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity and of Improvement, and the depression sub-scale of the Symptom Checklist.
                The advantages of combining antidepressants with psychotherapy were equivocal. Neither the treating clinicians nor the independent observers were able to ascertain them, but the patients experienced them clearly.
                The advantages of combining antidepressants with psychotherapy are equivocal. The aim of this randomized double blind placebo controlled study was to investigate the effectiveness and the safety of venlafaxine XR 75 and 150 mg on ongoing pain and on quantitative sensory tests in 60 patients with neuropathic pain for 8 weeks.
                Evaluation parameters consisted of ongoing pain intensity (VAS), patient satisfaction, side effects, global efficacy and tolerance. Quantitative sensory measurements taken from the affected area before and after the drug treatment included pin-prick hyperalgesia, allodynia, detection and pain thresholds to electrical and heat stimuli, temporal summation of repetitive electrical and heat stimuli.
                A total of 55 patients completed the study. VAS scores decreased significantly compared to the baseline measurements in all groups. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding pain intensity and escape medication. The areas of allodynia and pin-prick hyperalgesia decreased significantly in venlafaxine groups compared to the placebo. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the detection thresholds (electrical and heat). The pain threshold and the summation threshold to electrical stimuli and the summation threshold to heat stimuli increased significantly following treatment in both venlafaxine groups. In addition, the degree of the temporal summation to electrical and heat stimuli decreased significantly following treatment in both venlafaxine groups compared to the placebo.
                The study showed significant effect of venlafaxine in the manifestations of hyperalgesia and temporal summation, but not on the ongoing pain intensity. Furthermore, the quantitative sensory tests provided complementing information to the clinical measures. In 47 patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) who had never had an adequate trial of any antidepressant, we performed a randomized, double-blind, parallel design trial comparing desipramine, amitriptyline, and fluoxetine. Patients were titrated to a maximum of 150 mg/day for desipramine and amitriptyline and 60 mg/day for fluoxetine over a 3-week period and then treated for an additional 3 weeks before tapering off study medication. A total of 38 subjects (81%) completed the entire trial. The modified intent-to-treat analysis of percent change in daily diary pain intensity scores showed no significant differences among the 3 drugs (ANOVA P = .120). Desipramine produced the greatest reduction in pain intensity (47%), followed by amitriptyline (38%) and fluoxetine (35%). Clinically meaningful pain relief (moderate or better) was significantly more likely with desipramine (12/15 patients) than with amitriptyline (9/17) or fluoxetine (5/15); chi(2)P = 0.036). The 11 subjects using opioids at study entry had smaller reductions in pain than those not using concomitant opioids. The fluoxetine group had the highest noncompletion rate (33%), with 1 subject hospitalized for hyponatremia. Although the magnitude of pain reduction and the category pain relief rating was not significantly different among the 3 drugs, the tricyclics desipramine and amitriptyline were well tolerated and provided clinically meaningful pain relief in 53% to 80% of subjects.
                Few clinical trials focus on patients who are naïve to an entire class of medication. In this randomized blinded trial, the tricyclic antidepressants desipramine and amitriptyline were compared to the serotonin-selective antidepressant fluoxetine. All 3 drugs reduced PHN pain, with desipramine providing satisfactory relief in 80% of those treated. Depression is one of the most common psychiatric disturbances in Parkinson's disease (PD). Recent reviews have highlighted the lack of controlled trials and the ensuing difficulty in formulating recommendations for antidepressant use in PD. We sought to establish whether antidepressants provide real benefits and whether tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants differ in their short-term efficacy, because the time to onset of therapeutic benefit remains an important criterion in depression. The short-term efficacy (after 14 and 30 days) of two antidepressants (desipramine, a predominantly noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor tricyclic and citalopram, a SSRI) was assessed in a double-blind, randomized, placebo- controlled study of 48 nondemented PD patients suffering from major depression. After 14 days, desipramine prompted an improvement in the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score, compared with citalopram and placebo. Both antidepressants produced significant improvements in the MADRS score after 30 days. Mild adverse events were twice as frequent in the desipramine group as in the other groups. A predominantly noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant induced a more intense short-term effect on parkinsonian depression than did an SSRI. However, desipramine's lower tolerability may outweigh its slight short-term clinical advantage.
                (c) 2008 Movement Disorder Society. Depression has emerged as a contrastive area of gender differences in psychiatry, as epidemiological data has consistently shown depression is twice as common in women as men. The pharmacodynamic effect of antidepressants may also show gender differences, as suggested by reports of better response of young women to non-tricyclic antidepressants.
                The antidepressive effect of an SSRI (fluoxetine) and a tetracyclic antidepressant with selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitory effect (maprotiline) was compared in a 6-week, double-blind trial of 105 depressed patients.
                No significant difference was observed in the change of HAMD17 total score from baseline to week 6 between fluoxetine- and maprotiline-treated patients. A significant difference was observed in females (fluoxetine, -17.8; maprotiline, -13.9; P=0.017) between treatment groups, but not in males. Amongst females, the difference was significant in women aged <44 years (fluoxetine, -18.4; maprotiline, -12.9; P=0.023) but not > or =44 years.
                Females in their reproductive period are more responsive to SSRI (fluoxetine) than norepinephrinergic tetracyclic antidepressant (maprotiline) treatment. Normal cyclical ovulation, and estrogen release may have a clinically relevant pharmacodynamic interaction with serotonergic antidepressants. Fluoxetine is the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant to be marketed in the U.S. In this double-blind trial fluoxetine was compared with imipramine and placebo among 198 outpatients with DSM-III major depression, of whom 145 completed at least 2 weeks of active treatment and were evaluated for efficacy. Significantly fewer patients in each active drug group terminated early due to lack of efficacy compared to placebo. Both imipramine and fluoxetine were significantly superior to placebo on most measures. There were no consistently significant differences between the two active drugs although a trend favored imipramine on a number of measures. Fluoxetine was generally well tolerated. Significantly more imipramine than placebo patients terminated early due to side-effects while the fluoxetine-placebo difference was not significant. The results support previous studies which suggest fluoxetine's superior side-effect profile and the approximate antidepressant equivalence of fluoxetine and TCAs. Accumulating evidence suggests that noradrenergic and serotonergic drugs are equally effective in ameliorating the depressive symptoms of major depression. Major depression is associated also with memory impairments, but the comparative effects of the antidepressant drugs on memory are not clear. We previously found that serotonergic neurotransmission is of particular importance for some aspects of episodic memory. We set out to test whether treatment with the selective serotonergic drug Fluoxetine (Prozac) would be advantageous in this respect over treatment with the selective noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant drug Desipramine (Deprexan). Seventeen patients with major depressive episode, randomly assigned for treatment with either Fluoxetine (n = 8) or Desipramine (n = 9), were assessed for their clinical situation and for memory performance at the beginning of treatment, after 3 weeks, and after 6 weeks of pharmacological treatment. We found that although clinically both drugs were equally effective, the improvement of memory performance in the Fluoxetine-treated patients was significantly greater compared with that of the Desipramine-treated patients. The results support the role of serotonin in memory. More studies in larger samples of patients are required, but it may be that in cases where memory impairment is a major symptom, it would be beneficial to consider serotonergic antidepressant drugs for treatment. Furthermore, in cases where, for various reasons, the treatment of choice is noradrenergic, it may be worthwhile to consider a supplementary serotonergic drug to improve memory deficits. Although a significant amount of evidence indicates the efficacy of some antidepressants in treating psychogenic pain and somatoform disorder, very few studies have investigated their possible therapeutic action in burning mouth syndrome (BMS). The purpose of this 8-week, single-blind study was to provide preliminary data on the efficacy and tolerability of amisulpride and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) paroxetine and sertraline for patients with BMS.
                Seventy-six patients with BMS (diagnosed according to the criteria in the literature and integrating the Diagnostic Interview Schedule-Revised for a complete psychiatric assessment), with no possible local or systemic causes and without concurrent major depression, were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride (50 mg/day), paroxetine (20 mg/day), or sertraline (50 mg/day). Efficacy assessments included a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain intensity, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI).
                All 3 treatment regimens resulted in a significant improvement from baseline in burning mouth symptoms at week 8 as demonstrated by the quantitative (mean reduction in VAS, HAM-D, and HAM-A scores) and qualitative (percentage of responders) analyses. Amisulpride showed a shorter response latency than the SSRIs. No serious adverse events were reported, and the incidence of side effects did not differ among the 3 groups. None of the patients who received amisulpride withdrew from the trial, whereas withdrawal from the trial occurred within the first week of treatment in 11.5% of patients (N = 3) treated with paroxetine and in 21.7% of patients (N = 5) treated with sertraline.
                The data suggest that amisulpride and SSRIs may be effective treatments for BMS; they are equally effective and equally well tolerated in the short-term treatment of BMS. Amisulpride is associated with better compliance within the first week of treatment and with a shorter response latency in comparison with SSRIs. This finding may indicate that amisulpride is especially useful at the beginning of drug therapy of BMS. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are needed to further document the efficacy of amisulpride and SSRIs in the treatment of BMS. Effective management of major depressive disorder (MDD) continues to be a challenging task for psychiatrists and primary care physicians. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole versus antidepressant monotherapy in patients with MDD and independently replicated the positive findings of two similar trials.
                Patients (N=1,147) with MDD experiencing a major depressive episode and a history of inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy were enrolled (week 0); 827 received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus open-label antidepressant (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended release) for 8 weeks to confirm inadequate response to antidepressants; 349 patients with inadequate response were randomized (1:1) to double-blind, adjunctive placebo (n=172) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n=177; 2-20 mg/day). Primary outcome was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total score from baseline (week 8) to endpoint (week 14).
                Clinically significant improvements in depressive symptoms as assessed by decreases in the MADRS Total score were greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (-10.1) than placebo (-6.4; P<.001). Remission rates were greater for adjunctive aripiprazole than for adjunctive placebo (week 14, 36.8% vs 18.9%; P<.001). Completion rates with adjunctive aripiprazole and placebo were high (83% vs. 87%) and discontinuations due to adverse events were low (6.2% vs 1.7%).
                For some patients with MDD who do not obtain adequate symptom relief with antidepressant monotherapy, adjunctive therapies can significantly improve depressive symptoms. As reported, adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with a two-fold higher remission rate than adjunctive placebo. This, and previous studies, have shown that discontinuations due to adverse events were low and completion rates were high, and has indicated that both antidepressant and aripiprazole in combination were relatively well-tolerated and safe. This is the third consecutive clinical trial, in the absence of a failed trial, to demonstrate that aripiprazole augmentation to antidepressants is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for patients with MDD who do not respond adequately to standard antidepressant monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00105196). Previous comparative studies of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have rarely included a placebo control group and have rarely demonstrated significant between-group differences. The study reported on here was a placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant effects of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline.
                Three hundred twenty-three patients with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder were randomized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with citalopram (20-60 mg/day), sertraline (50-150 mg/day), or a placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and the primary statistical analysis was an analysis of variance comparing the change from baseline to the last observation carried forward in each treatment group.
                Both citalopram and sertraline produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the HAMD, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Significant improvement was observed at earlier timepoints in the citalopram group than the sertraline group; however, sertraline treatment was associated with increased gastrointestinal side effects and a tendency toward early discontinuation, and analyses that excluded early dropouts revealed similar acute efficacy for the two active treatments. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale demonstrated a significant anxiolytic effect of citalopram, but not sertraline, relative to placebo.
                This study confirms the antidepressant efficacy of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline. It is hypothesized that the more consistent evidence of antidepressant activity that was observed early in treatment in the citalopram group was related to more pronounced antianxiety effects and better tolerability upon initiation of therapy. There is controversy about whether the lack of response of some chronic pain to opioid treatment is absolute or relative. It is widely believed that nociceptive pain is responsive to opioids whereas neuropathic pain tends not to be. We have used a method of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with simultaneous nurse-observer measurement of analgesia, mood, and adverse effects to address these issues. Ten patients with chronic pain were given morphine at two concentrations (10 and 30 mg/ml) by PCA in two separate sessions in a double-blind randomised crossover study. Before the study a clinical judgment was made as to whether each pain was nociceptive or neuropathic. Seven patients showed good analgesic responses (more than 70 mm pain relief on a visual-analogue scale) of pain at rest, two patients poor responses (less than 30 mm pain relief), and one a moderate response with both concentrations (30-70 mm pain relief). The response to morphine was consistent (greater and faster relief with the higher concentration) in nine patients. Two patients had pain on movement that responded moderately to low-concentration morphine and well to the higher concentration. All patients with pains judged to be nociceptive showed good analgesic responses compared with half of those with neuropathic pain. There was no evidence that analgesic responses in patients with neuropathic pain were due to changes in mood. This PCA method is a quick and efficient tool to determine the consistency of the analgesic response. Such consistency can guide the clinician as to whether continued or higher-dose opioid treatment will produce good analgesia. An inconsistent response points to the use of other pain-relieving strategies. Although opioids are commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic pain, there are limited data to guide their use. Few controlled trials have been performed, and many types of neuropathic pain remain unstudied.
                Adults with neuropathic pain that was refractory to treatment were randomly assigned to receive either high-strength (0.75-mg) or low-strength (0.15-mg) capsules of the potent mu-opioid agonist levorphanol for eight weeks under double-blind conditions. Intake was titrated by the patient to a maximum of 21 capsules of either strength per day. Outcome measures included the intensity of pain as recorded in a diary, the degree of pain relief, quality of life, psychological and cognitive function, the number of capsules taken daily, and blood levorphanol levels.
                Among the 81 patients exposed to the study drug, high-strength levorphanol capsules reduced pain by 36 percent, as compared with a 21 percent reduction in pain in the low-strength group (P=0.02). On average, patients in the high-strength group took 11.9 capsules per day (8.9 mg per day) and patients in the low-strength group took close to the 21 allowed (18.3 capsules per day; 2.7 mg per day). Affective distress and interference with functioning were reduced, and sleep was improved, but there were no differences between the high-strength group and the low-strength group in terms of these variables. Noncompletion of the study was primarily due to side effects of the opioid. Patients with central pain after stroke were the least likely to report benefit.
                The reduction in the intensity of neuropathic pain was significantly greater during treatment with higher doses of opioids than with lower doses. Higher doses produced more side effects without significant additional benefit in terms of other outcome measures.
                Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society The comparative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) was recently debated. Meta-analyses, based mainly on fluoxetine comparator data, suggest that the SNRI venlafaxine has superior efficacy to SSRIs in treatment of major depression.
                To compare quality of life (QOL), efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with sertraline and venlafaxine extended release (XR) for treatment of DSM-IV major depression.
                This was an 8-week, double-blind, randomized study of sertraline (50-150 mg/day) versus venlafaxine XR (75-225 mg/day), followed by a 2-week taper period. Subjects were recruited from 7 sites in Turkey and 6 sites in Australia between October 2002 and July 2003. The primary outcome measure was the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included measures of depression (including response and remission), anxiety, pain, safety (e.g., blood pressure), and tolerability (e.g., discontinuation symptoms).
                A total of 163 subjects received study treatment (women, 69%; mean age, 37.0 [SD = 12.9] years). No significant differences in QOL or efficacy were noted between treatments on the primary or secondary endpoints for the total study population or the anxious depression and severe depression subgroups. A priori analyses of symptoms associated with treatment discontinuation demonstrated no difference between treatment groups. However, in post hoc analyses, sertraline was associated with less burden of moderate to severe discontinuation symptoms. Venlafaxine XR was associated with a relative increase in mean blood pressure (supine diastolic blood pressure, -4.4 mm Hg difference at week 8/last observation carried forward).
                Sertraline and venlafaxine XR demonstrated comparable effects on QOL and efficacy in treatment of major depression, although sertraline may be associated with a lower symptom burden during treatment discontinuation and a reduced risk of blood pressure increase. Escitalopram is the most selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressant available. Venlafaxine is a non-selective SRI that also inhibits noradrenergic re-uptake. This study compared escitalopram and venlafaxine extended release (XR) in depressed outpatients at the highest doses recommended in the United States.
                In this randomized trial, patients (diagnosis of DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder; baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of >/= 20) received 1 week of single-blind placebo treatment, followed by 8 weeks of double-blind, fixed-dose treatment with either escitalopram or venlafaxine XR (rapidly titrated to 20 mg/day and 225 mg/day, respectively, in accordance with prescribing information). The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline to week 8 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Data were collected from May to December 2002.
                Mean baseline MADRS scores for the escitalopram (N = 97) and venlafaxine XR (N = 98) groups were 30.7 and 30.0, respectively. There were no significant differences in measures of efficacy between the 2 antidepressants. Mean changes from baseline to endpoint in MADRS total score for escitalopram and venlafaxine XR were -15.9 and -13.6, respectively. Remission (MADRS score of </= 10) rates at endpoint were 41.2% for escitalopram and 36.7% for venlafaxine XR. Response (>/= 50% reduction from baseline MADRS score) rates for the escitalopram and venlafaxine XR groups were 58.8% and 48.0%, respectively. Tolerability measures favored escitalopram over venlafaxine XR treatment. The venlafaxine XR group had a higher incidence than the escitalopram group of treatment-emergent adverse events (85.0% vs. 68.4%) and discontinuation due to adverse events (16.0% vs. 4.1%; p <.01).
                Results of this study indicate that, when titrated rapidly to their maximum recommended doses, escitalopram is at least as effective as venlafaxine XR and significantly better tolerated. These results do not support the hypothesis that nonselective SRIs have greater efficacy than selective SRIs. Hot flashes can be troublesome, especially when hormonal therapy is contraindicated. Preliminary data have suggested that newer antidepressants, such as venlafaxine, can diminish hot flashes. We undertook a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial to assess the efficacy of venlafaxine in women with a history of breast cancer or reluctance to take hormonal treatment because of fear of breast cancer.
                Participants were assigned placebo (n=56) or venlafaxine 37.5 mg daily (n=56), 75 mg daily (n=55), or 150 mg daily (n=54). After a baseline assessment week, patients took the study medication for 4 weeks. All venlafaxine treatment started at 37.5 mg daily and gradually increased in the 75 mg and 150 mg groups. Patients completed daily hot-flash questionnaire diaries. The primary endpoint was average daily hot-flash activity (number of flashes and a score combining number and severity). Analyses were based on the women who provided data throughout the baseline and study weeks.
                191 patients had evaluable data for the whole study period (50 placebo, 49 venlafaxine 37.5 mg, 43 venlafaxine 75 mg, 49 venlafaxine 150 mg). After week 4 of treatment, median hot flash scores were reduced from baseline by 27% (95% CI 11-34), 37% (26-54), 61% (50-68), and 61% (48-75) in the four groups. Frequencies of some side-effects (mouth dryness, decreased appetite, nausea, and constipation) were significantly higher in the venlafaxine 75 mg and 150 mg groups than in the placebo group.
                Venlafaxine is an effective non-hormonal treatment for hot flashes, though the efficacy must be balanced against the drug's side-effects. Confirmation of the results of this 4-week study awaits the completion of three ongoing randomised studies to assess the effects of other related antidepressants for the treatment of hot flashes. Three new antidepressants were used in treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and symptoms of depression in Bosnian refugees. Thirty-two Bosnian refugees seeking treatment at a mental health clinic participated in a case series study. All received open trials of Sertraline (n = 15), Paroxetine (n = 12), or Venlafaxine (n = 5), with standard clinical doses. Overall, Sertraline and Paroxetine produced statistically significant improvement at 6 weeks in PTSD symptom severity in depression, and in Global Assessment of Functioning. Venlafaxine produced improvement in PTSD symptom severity and in Global Assessment of Functioning, did not yield improvement in symptoms of major depressive disorder; and had a high rate of side effects. Notwithstanding improvement of symptoms, all 32 refugees remained PTSD positive at the diagnostic level at the 6-week follow-up. The effects of trimipramine, a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) with atypical pharmacological properties, and fluoxetine, a selective serotonine reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), were compared in an exploratory analysis using mood and polysomnographic parameters during a six-week double-blind trial in 19 depressed geriatric patients. In sleep EEG measures, trimipramine demonstrated clear-cut effects on sleep measures resulting in higher values for sleep efficiency, total sleep time, stage 2 sleep, and shorter wake time. Under fluoxetine treatment, the proportion of REM sleep was decreased and REM latency was lengthened, whereas no change in REM sleep parameters was observed in the trimipramine group. The present data suggest that early antidepressant effects of medication occur independently of drug-induced changes in objective measures of sleep, i.e. suppression of REM sleep. The antidepressant efficacy and short-term safety of venlafaxine and fluoxetine were compared in 68 patients hospitalized with major depression and melancholia. Venlafaxine was superior in efficacy to fluoxetine; total scores for both the MADRS and the HAM-D were significantly (p < or = 0.05) lower in the venlafaxine group than in the fluoxetine group at Weeks 4 and 6. Overall tolerance was similar for the two treatments. The enhanced sensitivity of the elderly to the side effects produced by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and the frequency and type of adverse events, have made the treatment of depression in this group difficult. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been reported to produce significantly fewer undesirable side effects and display better tolerance than TCAs. We compared the therapeutic actions and side effects produced by citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, with amitriptyline in a group of elderly patients (aged 65 and older) diagnosed with major depression. In a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter comparison of citalopram (20 or 40 mg/day) and amitriptyline (50 or 100 mg/day), patients who did not respond to placebo during a 1-week single-blind phase were randomly assigned to receive citalopram or amitriptyline for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), and Clinical Global Impressions. Both drug treatments produced equivalent time-related declines in severity of depression, so that by 8 weeks slightly more than 50% of the patients in each group experienced marked recovery, defined as MADRS scores < or = 12. Amitriptyline produced a greater overall incidence of adverse events, including a significantly higher (P < 0.001) percentage of patients reporting dry mouth (34% vs. 7%), as well as a significantly higher (P < 0.02) incidence of somnolence. Constipation and fatigue also occurred more frequently in the amitriptyline than in the citalopram group. For only one event (nausea) did the citalopram group report a significantly greater (P = 0.012) incidence (12.8% vs. 4.8%). On the basis of these results, it was concluded that citalopram is as effective an antidepressant as amitriptyline in the treatment of the depressed elderly. Because of its low incidence and low magnitude of side effects, citalopram seems especially useful in private practice. Intravenous lidocaine, a nonspecific Na-channel blocker, was used to assess the dental impaction model for evaluation of neuropathic pain drugs. Sixty patients, experiencing moderate or severe pain after removal of > or = 2 third molars, were randomized (2:2:1:1) to lidocaine (4 mg/kg; maximal dose 300 mg), oxycodone/acetaminophen (10/650 mg), placebo, and active placebo (diphenhydramine, 50 mg). Lidocaine provided a modest degree of pain relief. Predefined endpoints of total pain relief and sum of pain intensity at 2, 4, and 6 hours showed numerically, not statistically significantly, greater pain relief versus placebo. A significantly greater effect over placebo was observed in peak effect and at shorter time points (30 minutes and 1 hour), consistent with the pharmacokinetic profile (plasma concentration of approximately 2 mug/mL). Oxycodone/acetaminophen provided significantly greater analgesia versus placebo, validating study conduct, and significantly greater pain relief was observed versus lidocaine, which is consistent with a smaller portion of dental extraction pain being of neuropathic origin. Neuropathic pain is a common complaint after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Gabapentin, a synthetic structural analogue of GABA, has been shown to have beneficial effects in the treatment of neuropathic pain in other diagnostic groups; however, no standardized clinical trial has been performed to evaluate its efficacy after SCI.
                A 10-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover, and placebo-controlled clinical trial.
                To determine the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of SCI-related neuropathic pain.
                Seven subjects with neuropathic pain, who were more than 30 days post-SCI, completed the study. Two groups received a 4-week course of gabapentin and placebo in a randomized crossover design with a 2-week washout period. The Neuropathic Pain Scale was used to record daily pain levels. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
                Gabapentin has some beneficial effects on certain types of neuropathic pain. There was a significant decrease of "unpleasant feeling" and a trend toward a decrease in both the "pain intensity" and "burning sensation" at the fourth week of gabapentin treatment compared with those on the placebo. No significant difference was found among other pain descriptors during the gabapentin and placebo treatment, although this may have been limited by the small sample size and low maximum dosage of gabapentin.
                Gabapentin reduces certain types of neuropathic pain in the SCI population. Future studies with larger sample sizes, higher dosages, and quicker titration will help further determine the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of SCI-related neuropathic pain. Stimulating the human cortex using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) temporarily reduces clinical and experimental pain; however, it is unclear which cortical targets are the most effective. The motor cortex has been a popular target for managing neuropathic pain, while the prefrontal cortex has been investigated for an array of nociceptive pain conditions. It is unclear whether the motor cortex is the only effective cortical target for managing neuropathic pain, and no published studies to date have investigated the effects of prefrontal stimulation on neuropathic pain.
                This preliminary pilot trial employed a sham-controlled, within-subject, crossover design to evaluate clinical pain as well as laboratory pain thresholds among four patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Each participant underwent three real and three sham 20-minute sessions of 10 Hz left prefrontal repetitive TMS. Daily pain diaries were collected for 3 weeks before and after each treatment phase along with a battery of self-report pain and mood questionnaires.
                Time-series analysis at the individual patient level indicated that real TMS was associated with significant improvements in average daily pain in 3 of the 4 participants. These effects were independent of changes in mood in two of the participants. At the group level, a decrease of 19% in daily pain on average, pain at its worst, and pain at its least was observed while controlling for changes in mood, activity level and sleep. The effects of real TMS were significantly greater than sham. Real TMS was associated with increases in thermal and mechanical pain thresholds, whereas sham was not. No statistically significant effects were observed across the questionnaire data.
                The prefrontal cortex may be an important TMS cortical target for managing certain types of pain, including certain neuropathic pain syndromes. Social anxiety disorder, which occurs in 2% to 5% of children and adolescents, is associated with significant distress and functional impairment.
                The objective of the randomized, masked controlled trial conducted in 48 academic and community centers in the United States was to evaluate the efficacy of venlafaxine ER in children and adolescents with generalized social anxiety disorder. A volunteer sample of 293 outpatients, age 8 to 17, who met diagnostic criteria for social anxiety disorder and were enrolled between February 2000 and March 2003 participated. Venlafaxine ER or placebo was titrated from a starting dose of 37.5 mg to a maximum dose of 225 mg over 16 weeks. The primary dependent measures were the Social Anxiety Scale, child or adolescent version (SAS-CA) and for responder analysis, a (dichotomized) Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score.
                Compared with placebo, intent-to-treat random regression analyses indicated a statistically significant advantage for venlafaxine ER (p = .001) on the SAS-CA. On the CGI-I responder analysis, 56% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47%-64%) of venlafaxine ER treated subjects responded, which was statistically superior to placebo (37% [95% CI, 29%-45%]). Three venlafaxine ER and no placebo patients developed treatment-emergent suicidality; there were no completed suicides.
                Venlafaxine ER is an effective and reasonably well-tolerated treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder in children and adolescents. As with other antidepressants, careful clinical monitoring for adverse events, including treatment-emergent suicidality, is essential. Seven published, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with pregabalin have shown robust efficacy for relief of neuropathic pain from DPN and PHN. An investigation of the efficacy and safety of twice daily pregabalin enrolled 395 adults with painful DPN for > or = 1 year in a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized to placebo, 150, 300, or 600 mg/day pregabalin (n = 96, 99, 99, and 101). Primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in endpoint mean pain score from patients' daily pain diaries. Secondary efficacy measures included pain-related sleep-interference scores, Patient and Clinical Global Impressions of Change (PGIC, CGIC), and the EuroQOL Health Utilities Index (EQ-5D). Statistically significant reduction in pain was observed in patients receiving pregabalin 600 mg/day, and 46% of patients treated with 600 mg/day pregabalin reported > or = 50% improvement in mean pain scores from baseline (vs 30% of placebo patients, p = 0.036). Number needed to treat to achieve such response was 6.3. Pregabalin 600 mg/day was significantly superior to placebo in improving pain-related sleep-interference scores (p = 0.003), PGIC (p = 0.021), and CGIC (p = 0.009). (Neither pregabalin 150 nor 300 mg/day separated from placebo on these measures, largely because of an atypically large placebo response in one country representing 42% of patients.) All pregabalin dosages were superior to placebo in improving EQ-5D utility scores (all p > or = 0.0263 vs placebo). Pregabalin was well tolerated at all dosages; adverse events were generally mild to moderate. Number needed to harm (discontinuation because of adverse events) was 10.3 for pregabalin 600 mg/day. This randomised, double-blind study conducted at nine sites in the UK and the Netherlands compared the safety and antidepressant efficacy of venlafaxine and dothiepin. Ninety-two geriatric patients (aged 64-87 years) with major depression were randomly assigned to receive either venlafaxine or dothiepin for up to 43 days. The dose of venlafaxine or dothiepin was titrated up to a maximum of 150 mg per day for the first 15 days, and thereafter could range from 50 to 150 mg per day. Adjusted mean scores on the MADRS and the HAM-D decreased significantly (p 0.05) for baseline to the end of the study in both groups. A response to therapy was observed in 60% of patients in the venlafaxine group and 53% of patients in the dothiepin group on the MADRS, and in 60% of patients in both groups on the HAM-D. Suicidal ideation scores on the MADRS were significantly (p = 0.042) lower in the venlafaxine group at week 6. Treatment-emergent study events were the primary reasons for withdrawal in only 7% of venlafaxine-treated patients and 8% of dothiepin-treated patients. The results confirm the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine for treating major depression in the elderly. To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture for fibromyalgia.
                Fifty-eight women with fibromyalgia were allocated randomly to receive either acupuncture together with tricyclic antidepressants and exercise (n=34), or tricyclic antidepressants and exercise only (n=24). Patients rated their pain on a visual analogue scale. A blinded assessor evaluated both the mean pressure pain threshold value over all 18 fibromyalgia points and quality of life using SF-36.
                At the end of 20 sessions, patients who received acupuncture were significantly better than the control group in all measures of pain and in 5 of the SF-36 subscales. After 6 months, the acupuncture group was significantly better than the control group in numbers of tender points, mean pressure pain threshold at the 18 tender points and 3 subscales of SF-36. After one year, the acupuncture group showed significance in one subscale of the SF-36; at 2 years there were no significant differences in any outcome measures.
                Addition of acupuncture to usual treatments for fibromyalgia may be beneficial for pain and quality of life for 3 months after the end of treatment. Future research is needed to evaluate the specific effects of acupuncture for fibromyalgia. To assess, against placebo, the pain-relieving effects of high-rate repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on neuropathic pain.
                Double-blind, randomized, cross-over study of high-rate rTMS against placebo in 28 patients. The effect of a change in coil orientation (posteroanterior vs lateromedial) on different subtypes of neuropathic pain was further tested in a subset of 16 patients. Pain relief was evaluated daily during 1 week.
                High-frequency, posteroanterior rTMS decreased pain scores significantly more than placebo. Posteroanterior rTMS also outmatched placebo in a score combining subjective (pain relief, quality of life) and objective (rescue drug intake) criteria of treatment benefit. Changing the orientation of the coil from posteroanterior to lateromedial did not yield any significant pain relief. The analgesic effects of posteroanterior rTMS lasted for approximately 1 week. The pain-relieving effects were observed exclusively on global scores reflecting the most distressing type of pain in each patient. Conversely, rTMS did not modify specifically any of the pain subscores that were separately tested (ongoing, paroxysmal, stimulus-evoked, or disesthesic pain).
                Posteroanterior repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was more effective than both placebo and lateromedial rTMS. When obtained, pain relief was not specific of any particular submodality, but rather reduced the global pain sensation whatever its type. This is in accord with recent models of motor cortex neurostimulation, postulating that its analgesic effects may derive in part from modulation of the affective appraisal of pain, rather than a decrease of its sensory components. Many claims have been made for superior compliance with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with tricyclic antidepressants, but to date meta-analyses have not confirmed reduced dropouts in randomized controlled trials. The authors used a randomized study design to evaluate differential compliance with antidepressant medications in a primary care setting.
                A total of 152 patients treated in 10 primary care practices in the United Kingdom were included in a randomized, open-label, parallel-group study of fluoxetine and dothiepin at therapeutic doses for 12 weeks. Compliance was assessed by using pill count, patient questionnaires, and the Medication Event Monitoring System.
                The level of compliance with fluoxetine was numerically higher than the level of compliance with dothiepin on all three primary outcome measures, although the differences were not significant. In a secondary analysis using data from the Medication Event Monitoring System, both a survival analysis for length of time without a gap in medicine taking and a derived compliance index showed a significant advantage to fluoxetine. Patients in the fluoxetine group reported superior response on the health transition scale of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey Questionnaire and numerically greater improvement on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. In both treatment arms patients with a superior compliance index were more likely to have improved in Hamilton depression scale scores by the last study visit.
                This study supports recent meta-analyses of SSRIs versus tricyclic antidepressants in finding no significant differences in crude indices of compliance between fluoxetine and dothiepin, despite marked differences in side effect profile and dose regimen. However, both a survival analysis and a new measure that takes account of prolonged periods of noncompliance distinguished between the treatments and was associated with improvement in both groups. Anticonvulsant drugs are commonly used in neuropathic pain. There is anecdotal evidence of an analgesic effect of the anticonvulsant lamotrigine in neuropathic pain, but this is verified by few randomised controlled trials. This randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of examined the effect of lamotrigine in a dose increasing to 200 mg in 100 patients with neuropathic pain. Eight patients failed to attend for review, 18 withdrew early and 74 provided results. There was no statistical difference in age, sex or duration pre-treatment pain in the two groups. Total pain, the character of the pain, sensitivity, numbness, paraesthesia, sleep, mobility, mood, quality of life and analgesic consumption were measured. There was a correlation between burning and numbness (P<0. 01), shooting pain and total pain (P<0.01) and between analgesic consumption and mobility (P<0.05) throughout the study period. There were no correlation between any other measured variable. There was no significant change in any variable measured over the eight week period when lamotrigine was used. It is concluded that at the dose used and using the dose escalation regime described, lamotrigine had no effect on either pain, component pain symptoms or quality of life variables. Depression is treated by a great variety of antidepressant treatments. SSRIs (such as fluoxetine) are well known: it is, however, sure that further progress is needed and the search for antidepressants with other mechanisms of action (such as tianeptine) or different efficacy is still of interest.
                A multinational study compared tianeptine with fluoxetine in 387 patients with Depressive Episode, or Recurrent Depressive Disorder, or Bipolar Affective Disorder (ICD-10), in a double-blind parallel group design. They were treated for six weeks.
                At inclusion, no significant difference between groups was shown. Final MADRS scores were 15.7 and 15.8 with tianeptine and fluoxetine, respectively (ITT population) (p = 0.944). MADRS responders were 58% and 56% with tianeptine and fluoxetine, respectively (p = 0.710). No statistical difference was observed for the other efficacy parameters. Thirty-six withdrawals occurred in each group, without any difference for the reasons of discontinuation. There was no major difference between groups for the other safety parameters.
                In this study, both tianeptine and fluoxetine exhibited a good efficacy and safety. A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled 8-week study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathic pain, using doses up to 2400 mg/day. The study used a novel design that was symptom- rather than syndrome-based; an approach that aimed to reflect the realities of clinical practice. Participants had a wide range of neuropathic pain syndromes, with at least two of the following symptoms: allodynia, burning pain, shooting pain, or hyperalgesia. Patients were randomised to gabapentin (n=153) or placebo (n=152). Gabapentin was given in three divided doses, initially titrated to 900 mg/day over 3 days, followed by two further increases, to a maximum of 2400 mg/day if required by the end of week 5. The primary outcome measure was changed in average daily pain diary score (baseline versus final week). Over the 8 week study, this score decreased (i.e. improved) by 1.5 (21%) in gabapentin treated patients and by 1.0 (14%) in placebo treated patients (P=0.048, rank-based analysis of covariance). Significant differences were shown in favour of gabapentin (P<0.05) for the Clinician and Patient Global Impression of Change, and some domains of the Short Form-McGill Pain Questionnaire. Improvements were also shown in patient-reported outcomes in quality of life, as seen by significant differences in favour of gabapentin in several domains of the Short-Form-36 Health Survey. Gabapentin was well tolerated and the majority of patients completed the study (79 versus 73% for placebo). The most common adverse events were mild to moderate dizziness and somnolence, most of which were transient and occurred during the titration phase. This study shows that gabapentin reduces pain and improves some quality-of-life measures in patients with a wide range of neuropathic pain syndromes. A minority of cancer survivors develops long-term postsurgical neuropathic pain. Based on evidence that capsaicin, the pungent ingredient in hot chili peppers, might be useful for treating neuropathic pain, we developed the present clinical trial.
                Ninety-nine assessable patients with postsurgical neuropathic pain were entered onto this study. After stratification, patients were to receive 8 weeks of a 0.075% capsaicin cream followed by 8 weeks of an identical-appearing placebo cream, or vice versa. A capsaicin/placebo cream was to be applied to the painful site four times daily. Treatment evaluation was performed by patient-completed weekly questionnaires.
                During the first 8-week study period, the capsaicin-cream arm was associated with substantially more skin burning, skin redness, and coughing (P < .0001 for each). Nonetheless, treatment was stopped for patient refusal or toxicity just as often while patients were receiving the placebo as compared with the capsaicin. The capsaicin cream arm had substantially more pain relief (P = .01) after the first 8 weeks, with an average pain reduction of 53% versus 17%. On completion of the 16-week study period, patients were asked which treatment period was most beneficial. Of the responding patients, 60% chose the capsaicin arm, 18% chose the placebo arm, and 22% chose neither (P = .001).
                A topical capsaicin cream decreases postsurgical neuropathic pain and, despite some toxicities, is preferred by patients over a placebo by a three-to-one margin among those expressing a preference. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of bupropion sustained-release (SR) for the treatment of neuropathic pain.
                This single-center, outpatient, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study consisted of two phases. Forty-one nondepressed patients with neuropathic pain spent 6 weeks in each phase in random order and received identical tablets of 150 mg bupropion SR or placebo. Patients were instructed to take one tablet once daily for 1 week followed by one tablet twice daily for 5 weeks.
                While the patients took bupropion SR, neuropathic pain relief was improved or much improved in 30 (73%) patients, and one of these patients became pain-free. The mean average pain score at baseline was 5.7, which remained unchanged at the end of week 6 with placebo, but decreased by 1.7 points to 4.0 (p < 0.001) during therapy with bupropion SR. Pain relief with bupropion SR was significant at week 2 (p < 0.05) and continued throughout weeks 3 through 6 (p < 0.001). A significant decrease in interference of pain on quality of life was observed while patients were receiving bupropion SR compared with placebo. Side effects experienced with bupropion SR were not dose-limiting and consisted primarily of dry mouth, insomnia, headache, gastrointestinal upset, tremor, constipation, and dizziness.
                This placebo-controlled crossover trial showed that bupropion SR (150-300 mg daily) was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of neuropathic pain. In this multicentre, placebo-controlled, 16-week trial, the efficacy and safety of oxcarbazepine monotherapy in patients with neuropathic pain of diabetic origin was evaluated. Eligible patients had a 6-month to 5-year history of neuropathic pain symptoms of diabetic origin and a pain rating of > or =50 units on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Oxcarbazepine was initiated at a dose of 300 mg/day and titrated to a maximum dose of 1800 mg/day. In total, 146 patients (oxcarbazepine, n=69; placebo, n=77) were randomized. After 16 weeks, oxcarbazepine-treated patients experienced a significantly larger decrease in the average change in VAS score from baseline compared with placebo (-24.3 vs. -14.7 units, respectively; p=0.01). The reduction from baseline in mean VAS score for oxcarbazepine-treated patients was of a greater magnitude than placebo as early as week 2 (-8.0 vs. -4.7; p<0.05). A significantly greater proportion of oxcarbazepine-treated patients experienced a >50% reduction from baseline in VAS score at the end of treatment compared with placebo (35.2% vs. 18.4%, respectively; p=0.0156; number needed to treat=6.0). Global assessment of therapeutic effect rating was improved in more oxcarbazepine patients than placebo patients (48% vs. 22%, respectively; p=0.0025). Patients on oxcarbazepine were awakened less frequently due to pain than patients on placebo. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity, transient, and in line with the known tolerability profile of oxcarbazepine. These observations suggest that oxcarbazepine monotherapy, pending additional trials, may be efficacious and may provide clinically meaningful pain relief in patients with neuropathic pain of diabetic origin.
This update has provided additional confirmation on the effectiveness of antidepressants for neuropathic pain and has provided new information on another antidepressant - venlafaxine. There is still limited evidence for the role of SSRIs. Whether antidepressants prevent the development of neuropathic pain (pre-emptive use) is still unclear. Both TCAs and venlafaxine have NNTs of approximately three. This means that for approximately every three patients with neuropathic pain who are treated with either of these antidepressants, one will get at least moderate pain relief. There is evidence to suggest that other antidepressants may be effective but numbers of participants are insufficient to calculate robust NNTs. SSRIs are generally better tolerated by patients and more high quality studies are required.