Insomnia is a significant public health concern that has prompted substantial efforts to develop treatment and management strategies. A significant proportion of complaints of insomnia are related to psychiatric conditions such as anxiety disorders and depression, and treatments for these disorders are known to exert both direct and indirect benefits on sleep as well as some negative effects on sleep and sleep physiology. Insomnia is also a prominent symptom of a number of other psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The observed impact of a variety of psychiatric medications on insomnia has prompted an empirically derived practice of treating non-psychiatric disorder-related insomnia with psychiatric medications by clinicians searching for alternatives to established medication treatments for primary insomnia. This article aims to review the evidence of the impact of psychiatric medications on sleep physiology, sleep disorders in psychiatric conditions, and on primary sleep disorders. The potential for exploiting the relevant pharmacological mechanisms of action in drug development for primary insomnia will be addressed as well.

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine succinate extended-release in major depressive disorder (MDD). Method: Adult outpatients with DSM-IV-defined MDD were randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine 100 mg/day (N = 114), 200 mg/day (N = 116), or 400 mg/day (N = 113) or placebo (N = 118) for 8 weeks. Efficacy variables included change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D 17 , the primary efficacy measure), Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S), rates of response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline HAM-D 17 score) and remission (HAM-D 17 score ≤ 7), and Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity overall score. The study was conducted from November 2003 to November 2004. Results: At the final on-therapy evaluation, the mean HAM-D 17 scores for desvenlafaxine 100 mg/day (12.75) and 400 mg/day (12.50) were significantly lower than for placebo (15.31; p = .0038 and p = .0023, respectively); for desvenlafaxine 200 mg/day, the mean score was 13.31 (p = .0764). CGI-I and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale results were significant for all groups; CGI-S results were significant with 100 mg/day and 400 mg/day. Response rates were significantly greater for desvenlafaxine 100 mg/day (51%) and 400 mg/day (48%) versus placebo (35%; p = .017 and p = .046, respectively); the response rate for desvenlafaxine 200 mg/day was 45% (p = .142). Remission rates were significantly greater for desvenlafaxine 400 mg/day (32%) versus placebo (19%; p = .035); remission rates were 30% for desvenlafaxine 100 mg/day (p = .093) and 28% for desvenlafaxine 200 mg/day (p = .126). Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity results were significant for desvenlafaxine 100 mg/day versus placebo (p = .002), but not for the higher doses. The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea, insomnia, somnolence, dry mouth, dizziness, sweating, nervousness, anorexia, constipation, asthenia, and abnormal ejaculation/orgasm. Conclusions: Desvenlafaxine is effective and well tolerated in the short-term treatment of MDD.

No abstract

No abstract

Management of benzodiazepine discontinuation can be facilitated significantly by co-prescribing imipramine before and during the benzodiazepine taper. Daily benzodiazepine dose, severity of baseline symptoms of anxiety and depression, and duration of benzodiazepine use were additional significant predictors of successful taper outcome.

A previous report suggested that 5 weeks of continued treatment with 20 mg of fluoxetine was approximately as effective as double-blind titration to a dose of 60 mg in patients who had failed to respond to 3 weeks of initial treatment at 20 mg. The current study was undertaken to evaluate whether 150 mg of sertraline was any more effective than 50 mg in treating depressed patients who were non-responders at 3 weeks. Ninety-one outpatients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder who had a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score > or = 18 were treated with open label sertraline for 3 weeks. Patients who did not achieve remission (defined as 17-item HAM-D total score < or = 8 by week 3) were then randomized to 5 more weeks of double-blind treatment with either 50 mg of sertraline or immediate titration to 150 mg of sertraline. Efficacy was assessed at each visit with the HAM-D, Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-severity and improvement scale, and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist. There were no significant between-group differences in clinical or demographic features at baseline for the three treatment groups. After 3 weeks of open-label treatment, 16 patients were not randomized, of whom 11 (69%) met responder criteria. The remaining patients were randomized, double-blind, to 50 mg of sertraline (n = 37; HAM-D = 19.2 +/- 5.0) or 150 mg of sertraline (n = 38; HAM-D = 18.4 +/- 5.0). PROC-Mixed analyses found no significant difference in slopes for any outcome measure when comparing 50 mg and 150 mg sertraline treatment groups. At week 8 (LOCF), the overall remission rate (HAM-D < or = 8) for 3-week non-responders was 40%, with no statistically significant between-group difference for the 50 mg versus 150 mg doses of sertraline (P > 0.10). A completer analysis yielded similar results. Adverse events were mostly mild on both doses of sertraline and led to few treatment discontinuations. The results suggest that for most patients continued treatment with 50 mg dose of sertraline yields a rate of antidepressant response that is comparable to what is achieved by dose escalation from 50 mg to 150 mg of sertraline after 3 weeks of treatment. While some patients clearly benefit from higher doses, the results of the current study are consistent with the lack of any evidence for a dose-response curve with sertraline in the treatment of depression.

No abstract

Recent uncontrolled research suggested that trazodone and sodium valproate may be helpful in benzodiazepine (BZ) discontinuation. We therefore undertook a double-blind study to assess whether trazodone and valproate, as compared to placebo, would attenuate withdrawal and facilitate discontinuation in BZ-dependent patients with a minimum of 1 year daily BZ use. Seventy-eight patients, taking a mean dose of 19+/-17 mg/day of diazepam (or its equivalent), were stabilized for several weeks on their BZ (16 diazepam, 25 lorazepam, 37 alprazolam) and then for 1-2 weeks, pretreated with trazodone, sodium valproate or placebo before being tapered at 25% per week. All treatments were continued for 5 weeks post-taper. BZ-free status was assessed after 5 and 12 weeks post-taper. Neither trazodone nor valproate had any significant effect on withdrawal severity. Peak physician withdrawal checklist change from baseline to peak severity was 16.4 for trazodone, 18.04 sodium valproate and 18.24 placebo (F = 0.10; NS). Taper success rates were significantly effected by both active agents at the 5-week, but not 12-week, assessment. At 5 weeks post-taper, 79% of sodium valproate and 67% of trazodone, but only 31% of placebo patients were BZ-free (chi2 = 7.34; df 2; P<0.03). Major adverse events for trazodone were sedation and dry mouth, and for valproate, diarrhea, nausea and headaches.