Summary
The aim of this study was to determine the benefit/risk ratio of long-term treatment with medifoxamine, a non-tricyclic, non-monoamine oxidase inhibitor agent, and fluoxetine in patients with acute depressive episode and at high risk of relapse and/or recurrence. The study involved a 12-month double-blind, randomised, parallel-group design with a multicentric trial setting conducted by 64 participating physicians. 155 and 158 patients of either gender, aged between 18 and 70 years, were allocated to fluoxetine and medifoxamine, respectively. All patients had an acute depressive episode defined by the presence of at least five of the DSM III-R criteria with a minimal score of 25 on the Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). All subjects had at least one previous documented depressive episode in their medical history. The main outcome criterion consisted of good therapeutic response defined by a sustained 50% reduction of the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score combined with the absence of any serious or troublesome (i.e. intensity motivating study discontinuation) events. In the fluoxetine and medifoxamine groups, respectively, 45.2% and 43% of the randomised patients completed the 12-month follow-up period with no major differences between groups regarding the reasons for treatment withdrawal. With each treatment 58% of the patients reached at least a 50% decrease in their CGI score, with no differences on the evolution of the MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), the Self Rating Depression Scale of Zung (Zung scale) and Scott depression visual analogue scale (VAS) scores on average. According to the main efficacy criterion, 26% of the patients in the fluoxetine group were considered as responders compared with 36% in the medifoxamine group (p = 0.047). When only serious adverse effects were considered in combination with CGI scores to define response rates, the respective percentages were in favour of medifoxamine but the difference (45 vs 53%) was not significant. Results with medifoxamine were better in the elderly whereas, with fluoxetine, best responses were observed in younger patients.
In conclusion, medifoxamine was an active and well tolerated drug in the continuation and maintenance treatment of depression. Its benefit/risk ratio appeared to be superior to fluoxetine, but this difference was mainly based on the occurrence of less minor adverse effects, a potential advantage not sufficient to favour better compliance with long-term therapy. Nevertheless, efficacy and tolerance of medifoxamine merits further evaluation in specific elderly populations.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bonnet J, Del Frari J, Loiseau AM, et al. Behavioural and biochemical profile of medifoxamine, an antidepressant agent. Londres, IUHAR 9th Int. Congress Pharmacol 29.07, 3.08.1984
Bessin P, Labaune JP, Levy JC. Approche du mécanisme d'action d'un antidépresseur, la médifoxamine —relation avec le système depaminergique. Congrès de pharmacologie francophone, Rouen, 5-7/05/1986
Martin P, Lemonnier F. Intérêt des récepteurs serotononergiques de type 2: 5 HT2A et HT2C dans les troubles dépressifs, action de la médifoxamine. Encephale 1994; 20: 427–35
Minot R, Beaubernard C, Toussain M, et al. Enregistrements polygraphiques de sommeil chez des déprimés avant et après traitement par CLEDIAL. Actualites Psych 1987; 7: 44–55
Poirier JL, Vieillefond H. Etude des effets de la médifoxamine sur la performance psychomotrice. Psychologie Medicale 1986; 8(2): 925–30
Randhawa MA, Hedges A, Johnston A, et al. A psychopharmacological study to assess anti-muscarinic and central nervous effects of medifoxamine in normal volunteers. Hum Psychopharm 1988; 3: 95–200
Moron P. Etude de l'efficacité et de la tolérance de Clédial au long cours. Psychologie Medicale 1989; 2(2): 83–845
Depression Guideline Panel. Clinical practice guideline number 5: depression in primary care: treatment of major depression. Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research 1993; 2 US Dept of Health and Human Services publication 93-055
Frank E, Kupfer DJ, Perel JM. Three-year outcomes for maintenance therapies in recurrent depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1990; 47: 93–9
Prien RE Drug therapy in the prevention of recurrences in unipolar and bipolar affective disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1984; 4: 96–104
Montgomery SA. The efficacy of fluoxetine as an antidepressant in the short and long term. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1989; 4: 3–9
Carney MW, Roth M, Garside RF. The diagnosis of depressive syndromes and the prediciton of ECT response. Br J Psych 1967; 13: 659–74
Laird NM, Ware JJ. Random effects model for longitudinal data. Biometrics 1982; 38: 963–74
Little RJA. Modelling the drop out mechanism in longitudinal studies. J Am Stat Assoc 1995; 90: 1112–21
Lavori PW. A multiple imputation strategy for clinical trials with truncation of patient data. Stat Med1995; 14: 1913–25
Cutler SJ, Ederer F. Maximum utilization of the Life Table Method in analysing survivial. J Chron Dis 1958; 8: 699–713
Montgomery SA. Efficacy in long-term treatment of depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1996; 57Suppl. 2: 24–30
Azorin JM. L'évolution spontanée des dépressions. Encephale 1995; 2 Spec No 2: 3–4
Keller MB. Depression: a long-term illness. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1994; 26: 9–5
Cardot H, Rouillon F. Evolution à long terme des dépressions (épidémiologie et clinique). Encephale 1995; 2 Spec No 2: 5–9
Fawcett J. Antidepressants: partial response in chronic depression. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1994; 26: 37–4
Pringuey D, Robert P, Giacomoni F, et al. Efficacité des antidépresseurs et thymorégulateurs dans l'évolution a long terme des dépressions. Encephale 1995; 2Spec No 2: 6–70
Loo H, Brochier T. Traitements antidépresseurs au long cours [discussion 96-7]. Ann Med Psychol (Paris) 1995; 53(3): 90–6
Sechter D.Les effets cliniques à long terme des antidépresseurs. Encephale 1995; 2Spec No 2: 35–8
Kind P, Sorensen J. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic use of SSRIs in the treatment of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 10Suppl. 1: 41–8
Lane R, McDonald G. Reducing the economic burden of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 9(4): 229–43
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lehert, P., Poirier-Littre, M., Pringuey, D. et al. New Statistical Proposals to Evaluate the Benefit/Risk Ratio of Long-Term Treatment of Depression. Clin. Drug Investig. 15, 285–295 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199815040-00004
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199815040-00004