-transparent.png){kind=logo}
A total of 56 patients attending a general practitioner for treatment of depression, most of whom met the criteria for major depression, were included in this double-blind, parallel group, 6-week study, in which the selective MAO-A inhibitor moclobemide (MOC; maximum dose 600 mg) was compared with the tricyclic antidepressant doxepin (DOX; maximum dose 250 mg). Thirty patients on MOC and 23 on DOX were assessed after treatment for at least 1 week and are included in the response evaluation. Improvement was assessed primarily with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). There were only 4 drop-outs in the MOC group and three in the DOX group after 1 week. Overall improvement measures showed a nonsignificant difference in favor of DOX. Two factors were found to have prognostic significance: (1) previous or present panic attacks (10 patients in the MOC group and--by chance--only one in the DOX group) were associated with significantly lower improvement within the MOC group. Since we had no a priori hypothesis about this effect, it could be a chance finding. (2) Improvement was negatively correlated with age; this was statistically significant in the total group as well as in the MOC group, with a nonsignificant trend in the same direction in the DOX group. Side effects differed little between the two groups; only dryness of mouth appeared with markedly higher frequency in the DOX group.
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
August 1995,
Journal of clinical psychopharmacology,
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
January 1972,
Psychosomatics,
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
January 1992,
Psychopharmacology,
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
December 1971,
The British journal of clinical practice,
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
June 1992,
International clinical psychopharmacology,
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
January 1993,
International clinical psychopharmacology,
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
January 1993,
International clinical psychopharmacology,
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
November 1982,
The Journal of clinical psychiatry,
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
October 1982,
The Journal of clinical psychiatry,
O Lingjaerde, and
J Jørgensen, and
R Støren, and
S Thomle, and
L Wendt Raeder, and
L E Ruud, and
E Schetelig, and
H K Sveaas, and
O Leivestad
December 1978,
The Journal of clinical psychiatry,
