This double-blind, randomized study evaluated the efficacy and safety of trazodone OAD (once-a-day) in comparison with venlafaxine XR (extended-release) in 324 patients (166 trazodone and 158 venlafaxine) with major depressive disorder (MDD). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) at week 8. Both treatments were effective in reducing the HAM-D-17 total score at week 8 vs. baseline (intent-to-treat: trazodone –12.9, venlafaxine –14.7; per protocol: trazodone –15.4, venlafaxine –16.4). Patients in the venlafaxine group achieved better results after 8 weeks, whereas the trazodone group achieved a statistically significant reduction in HAM-D-17 following only 7 days of treatment. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were dizziness and somnolence in the trazodone group, and nausea and headache in the venlafaxine group. Most AEs were mild-to-moderate in severity. This study confirmed that both venlafaxine XR and trazodone OAD may represent a valid treatment option for patients with MDD.

No abstract

This study showed that after a 6-week period trazodone and paroxetine are not different in reducing the symptoms of depression and, in many patients, in producing the remission of the illness. The known divergence in tolerability profile of the two medications, related to their differing pharmacological properties, was also confirmed. Trazodone may be of advantage in depressed patients with sleep difficulties.

Introduction: The present study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 10-day regimen of prulifloxacin 600 mg once daily as compared to ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily in the treatment of patients with complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs). Materials and Methods: 257 patients (mean age ± SD 62.3 ± 16.5) were enrolled and orally treated with prulifloxacin (127 patients) or ciprofloxacin (130 patients). The study was designed as a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled clinical trial. The primary efficacy parameter was the eradication of infecting strains (<10³ cfu/ml). The clinical outcome and tolerability were also assessed. Results: At baseline, the most common infecting strains were Escherichia coli (62.8%), Proteus mirabilis (7.1%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (4.1%). At the early follow-up, the rate of patients showing successful treatment was 90.8% in the prulifloxacin group, and 77.8% in the ciprofloxacin group (p = 0.008). A positive clinical outcome was observed in 94.8 and 93.3% of prulifloxacin- and ciprofloxacin-treated patients. Both drugs were well tolerated. Two patients dropped out for treatment-related adverse events. Conclusions: The high urinary concentrations of prulifloxacin, combined with a broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, allow its use in the empiric therapy of UTIs.

No abstract