Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:56:15.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clinical Features of Depression and the Response to Imipramine (“Tofranil”)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

J. J. Fleminger
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Medicine, Guy's Hospital; Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital
Bernard M. Groden
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Medicine, Guy's Hospital

Extract

Since it was first reported by Kuhn in 1957, the value of imipramine in the treatment of depressive illness has become generally recognized and confirmed by clinical trials (Blair, 1960; Daneman, 1961; Rees et al., 1961). It continues to hold an important place in therapy despite the introduction of many other antidepressant drugs and the occasional adverse report (Ashby & Collins 1961). Nevertheless the indications for its use are by no means established. It has been claimed that certain types of depression respond better than others: “psychotic” better than “neurotic” (Azima, 1959), “endogenous” better than “reactive” (Ball and Kiloh, 1959). Yet the difficulty of making these categorical distinctions, and of making reliable comparisons between the findings based upon them by different workers remains notorious. It is clear, however, that only a proportion of depressed patients respond well to imipramine. It is also certain that within the group which does respond well are to be found representatives of every type and degree of depressive state. There is evident need, therefore, for information that will help to indicate which characteristics of an individual will render him more or less susceptible to imipramine, and there does not appear to have been any study particularly devoted to this. In this paper we give the results of correlating certain clinical features of depression with the response to treatment by this drug.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1962 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ashby, W. R., and Collins, G. H., J. Ment. Sci., 1961, 107, 547.Google Scholar
2. Azima, H., Canad. Med. Ass. J., 1959, 80, 536.Google Scholar
3. Ball, J. R. B., and Kiloh, L. G., Brit. Med. J., 1959, 2, 1052.Google Scholar
4. Blair, D., J. Ment. Sci., 1960, 106, 891.Google Scholar
5. Daneman, E. A., Dis. Nerv. Syst., 1961, 22, 213.Google Scholar
6. Freyhan, F. A., Canad. Psychiat. Ass. J., 1959, 4, 86.Google Scholar
7. Hoff, H., ibid., 1959, 4, 55.Google Scholar
8. Kuhn, R., Schweiz. Med. Wschr., 1957, 87, 1135.Google Scholar
9. Racamier, P. C., Marechal, J. P., Carretier, L., and Sens, C., Ann. Méd.-Psych., 1961, 119, 53.Google Scholar
10. Rees, L., Brown, A. C., and Benaim, S., J. Ment. Sci., 1961, 107, 552.Google Scholar
11. Simpson, R. C., Lancet, 1960, 1, 498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.