Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:59:22.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Trial of Imipramine and Phenelzine in the Treatment of Depression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

Mary E. Martin
Mary E. Martin*
Affiliation:
St. Patrick's Hospital, Dublin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much work has been done in recent years on the use of individual anti-depressant drugs, but relatively little on comparative studies of their values. So many new drugs have appeared in such rapid succession that the psychiatrist has difficulty in knowing which to choose in the treatment of his depressed patient. The aim of this study was to compare imipramine (Tofranil) and phenelzine (Nardil), both of which had been found by personal experience to be of value in the treatment of depressive states. In the past two years there have been several well-controlled trials of both these drugs which have proved them to be of definite value in the treatment of depression. (Ball and Kiloh, 1959; Harris and Robin, 1960; Holdway, 1960; Hutchinson and Smedberg, 1960; Ashby and Collins, 1961; Rees et al., 1961.) At the time of commencement of this trial imipramine and phenelzine seemed to be the two best antidepressant agents available. It was decided to compare the remission rate or degree of improvement produced by them and the rapidity of response to each. It was hoped to determine what factors in the depressive illness were associated with a good or bad response to either drug. No similar direct comparison of these two drugs had been made, to the writer's knowledge.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 109 , Issue 459 , March 1963 , pp. 279 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1963 

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

Ashby, W. R., and Collins, G. H. (1961), J. Ment. Sci., 107, 547.Google Scholar
Ayd, F.J. (1960), Psychosomatics, 1, 27.Google Scholar
Ball, J. R. B., and Kiloh, L. G. (1959), Brit. Med. J., 11, 1052.Google Scholar
Bleaden, F. A., and Czekanska, G. (1960), Brit. Med. J., 1, 200.Google Scholar
Crisp, A. H., Hays, P., and Carter, A. (1961), Lancet, i, 17.Google Scholar
Dally, P. J., and Rohde, P. (1961), Lancet, i, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. A., and Robin, A. A. (1960), J. Ment. Sci., 106, 1432.Google Scholar
Holdway, V. (1960), J. Ment. Sci., 106, 1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, J. T., and Smedberg, D. (1960), J. Ment. Sci., 106, 704.Google Scholar
Kjloh, L. G., and Ball, J. R. B. (1961), Brit. Med. J., 1, 168.Google Scholar
Lovett Doust, J. W., Lewis, D. J., Miller, A., Sprott, D., and Wright, R. L. D. (1959), Canad. Psychiat. Ass. J., 4, 190.Google Scholar
Middlepell, R., Frost, I., Egan, G. P., and Eaton, H. (1960), J. Ment. Sci., 106, 1533.Google Scholar
Miller, A., and Baker, E. F. W. (1960), Canad. Psychiat. Ass. J., 5, 150.Google Scholar
Moore, J. N. P. (1960), Practitioner, 184, 652.Google Scholar
Post, F. (1959), Brit. Med. J., ii, 1252.Google Scholar
Rees, L., Brown, A. C., and Benaim, S. (1961), J. Ment. Sci., 107, 552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, L. and Davies, B. (1961), J. Ment. Sci., 107, 560.Google Scholar
Rothman, T., Grayson, H., and Ferguson, J. (1961), J. Neuropsychiat., 2, 158.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. C. (1960), Lancet, i, 498.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.