4.0 Article

Multicenter double-blind comparison of sertraline and desipramine for concurrent obsessive-compulsive and major depressive disorders

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages 76-82

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.57.1.76

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) have demonstrated consistent efficacy in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), while agents that are primarily norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors have not. Comparable efficacy has been demonstrated for SRI and non-SRI antidepressants in uncomplicated major depressive disorder (MDD). This multicenter trial is the first comparison of an SRI (sertraline) and a non-SRI antidepressant (desipramine) in the treatment of OCD with concurrent MDD. Methods: One hundred sixty-six patients diagnosed using structured clinical interviews and recruited from 16 treatment sites were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either sertraline (up to 200 mg/d) or desipramine (up to 300 mg/d) over 12 weeks. Measures of severity of OCD and MDD symptoms, as well as adverse effects of the medications, were monitored over the course of the treatment period. Results: Patients assigned to sertraline responded significantly better at end point on measures of OCD and MDD symptoms compared with patients assigned to desipramine. Sertraline was also associated with a significantly greater number of patients who achieved a robust improvement in OCD symptoms (greater than or equal to 40% reduction) compared with desipramine. More patients receiving desipramine than sertraline discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Conclusions: The SRI sertraline was more effective in reducing MDD and OCD symptoms than the primarily norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor desipramine for patients with concurrent OCD and MDD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available