This double-blind, sham-controlled study sought to investigate the effectiveness of cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for the treatment of bipolar II depression (BD II). After randomization, the active group participants (n = 7) received 2 mA CES treatment for 20 minutes five days a week for 2 weeks, whereas the sham group (n = 9) had the CES device turned on and off. Symptom non-remitters from both groups received an additional 2 weeks of open-label active treatment. Active CES treatment but not sham treatment was associated with a significant decrease in the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores from baseline to the second week (p = 0.003) maintaining significance until week 4 (p = 0.002). There was no difference between the groups in side effects frequency. The results of this small study indicate that CES may be a safe and effective treatment for BD II suggesting that further studies on safety and efficacy of CES may be warranted.

The efficacy and side‐effect profile for three dose ranges of remoxipride were compared with haloperidol in 242 schizophrenic inpatients in 13 centres. All patients were in a productive phase of schizophrenia according to DSM‐III criteria. Relative efficacy of low dose (30–90 mg daily) vs middle dose (120–240 mg daily) vs high dose (300–600 mg daily) was compared with the standard dose of haloperidol (15–45 mg daily), as were the side effects. It was concluded that the therapeutic efficacy of remoxipride was comparable to that of haloperidol for acute episodes of schizophrenia; that the low dose range was significantly less effective than the higher ranges; that there was a clear advantage of remoxipride over haloperidol with respect to incidence and severity of extrapyramidal symptoms. The general I safety profile of remoxipride as assessed from clinical chemistry, haematology, and cardiovascular variables suggests that remoxipride in the dose ranges studied can be used safely for the treatment of schizophrenic patients.

Hypnotic efficacy and safety of 3 weeks of daily doses of 2 mg lorazepam or 30 mg flurazepam were compared in a double-blind cross-over study in eight chronic insomniacs between the ages of 29 and 60 years. Subjects were monitored in the sleep laboratory twice weekly for a total of 25 nights. Also, subjective estimates of sleep, vigilance tests, and adverse effects were recorded throughout the study. Findings indicated lorazepam performed better than flurazepam in most sleep parameters. With lorazepam there was improvement from baseline in percentage of sleep time (P less than .05); in total wake time after sleep onset (P less than .01) and in last third of night (P less than .05); in percentage of stage 2 (P less than .05) (weeks 1, 2, 3) and in percentage of night in stage 4 (weeks 2 and 3). Only total wake time from baseline improved (P less than .05) with flurazepam (week 2). Objective and subjective sleep parameters did not correlate well for either drug. Neither drug impaired REM sleep or vigilance test performance. Side effects (grogginess, lethargy; flurazepam only) were few and none was unexpected; neither rebound insomnia nor early morning insomnia occurred with either drug. In summary, both lorazepam 2 mg at bedtime and flurazepam 30 mg at bedtime were found to be effective and safe for treating chronic insomnia, as measured by parameters of sleep and daytime functioning. Lorazepam had more favorable effects on sleep than did flurazepam.