Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:07:57.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evidence for 20 mg a day of Fluoxetine as the Optimal Dose in the Treatment of Depression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2018

A. C. Altamura ,
S. A. Montgomery  and
J. F. Wernicke
A. C. Altamura*
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano, Cattedra di Clinica Psichiatrica, Ospedale Maggiore, Milan, Italy
S. A. Montgomery
Affiliation:
St Mary's Hospital Medical School, London
J. F. Wernicke
Affiliation:
Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
*
∗Correspondence
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin-uptake inhibitor, has been shown to be effective in the treatment of depression. A series of studies found fluoxetine to be more effective than placebo and to be associated with equivalent efficacy to standard reference tricyclic antidepressants (Stark & Hardison, 1985; Feighner & Cohn, 1985).

The selection of a dosage regime for fluoxetine in these studies was based on the information gathered from open dose-ranging investigations. In these studies, treatment starts with one dose level, which is then increased as indicated in the protocol or until increased doses are not tolerated due to side-effects. One of the weaknesses in this method of choosing the likely standard dose of a new antidepressant lies in the inherent bias towards the selection of the higher dose levels. This is particularly true for drugs which are well tolerated.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 153 , Issue S3: Progress in Antidepressant Therapy , September 1988 , pp. 109 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

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

Dornseif, B. E., Wernicke, J. F., Dunlop, S. R. & Potvin, J. H. (1988) Effect of dose escalation after low-dose fluoxetine therapy. Presented at New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit, June 1988.Google Scholar
Fabre, L. F. & Putman, H. P. (1987) A fixed-dose clinical trial of fluoxetine in out-patients with major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 48, 406–408.Google ScholarPubMed
Feighner, J. P. & Cohn, J. B. (1985) Double-blind comparative trials of fluoxetine and doxepin in geriatric patients with major depressive disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 46, 20–25.Google Scholar
Montgomery, S. A., McAuley, R., Rani, S. J., Roy, D. & Montgomery, D. B. (1981) A double-blind comparison of zimelidine and amitriptyline in endogenous depression. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 63, (Suppl. 290), 314–327.Google Scholar
Montgomery, S. A., James, D., De Ruiter, M., Egglestone, J., Hawley, C., Birkett, P., Baldwin, D., Chu, C. & Montgomery, D. (1986) Weekly oral fluoxetine treatment of major depressive disorder. Presented at 15th CINP Congress. Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Stark, P. & Hardison, C. D. (1985) A review of multicenter controlled studies of fluoxetine vs imipramine and placebo in out-patients with major depressive disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 46, 7–13.Google Scholar
Walinder, J., Carlsson, A. & Persson, R. (1981) 5-HT reuptake inhibitors plus tryptophan in endogenous depression. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 63, (Suppl. 290), 179–190.Google Scholar
Wernicke, J. F., Dunlop, S. R., Dornseif, B. E. & Zerbe, R. L. (1987) Fixed-dose fluoxetine therapy for depression. Psychopharmacological Bulletin, 23, 164–168.Google Scholar
Wernicke, J. F., Dunlop, S. R., Dornseif, B. E. & Bosomworth, J. C. (1988) Low-dose fluoxetine therapy for depression. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 24, 183–188.Google Scholar
Wood, K. M., Swade, C. C. & Coppen, A. J. (1982) Zimelidine: a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study in depressive illness. British Journal of Clinical Practice, 19 (Suppl.), 42–47.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.