human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: An open-label , non-r and omized , pilot study has been performed in in patients in need of treatment with an antipsychotic ( risperidone ) and an antidepressant ( mirtazapine )  with the objective to preliminarily assess a possible pharmacokinetic interaction and the tolerability of this combination . A 1 - 4-week single drug treatment phase ( risperidone 1 - 3 mg bid or mirtazapine 30 mg nocte ) was followed by a 2 - 4-week combined drug treatment phase at unchanged doses . Twelve patients were enrolled , nine of whom were treated with risperidone  in the single drug phase . Results of plasma level measurements are available for six patients and indicate that adding mirtazapine to risperidone does not alter steady-state plasma concentrations of risperidone and its 9-hydroxy metabolite . Data from one patient suggest that adding risperidone to mirtazapine does not result in clinical ly relevant changes in plasma concentrations of either compound . The combination was well tolerated and no major or relevant adverse events were observed . Adding risperidone to mirtazapine probably does not necessitate a change of the dosage of either drug , but more extensive investigations are needed INTRODUCTION The temporal course of recovery of depressed patients ' cognitive impairment is not fully understood . METHODS We used the California Verbal Learning Test ( CVLT ) to test declarative memory in 24 depressed patients before and after 35 days of antidepressive treatment as well as after long-term follow-up ( > 12 months ) in order to relate improvement of depression to recovery of cognitive impairment . RESULTS Patients with complete remission after 35 days had generally been less impaired at baseline . The disturbance of declarative memory in treatment responders as well as in non-responders did not change from baseline to end of treatment ( day 35 ) . However , our results revealed normal values in the CVLT sum score as well as in measures of short- and long-delay free-recall measures in both groups after long-term full remission . DISCUSSION We conclude that clinical response to antidepressive treatment precedes improvement of declarative memory . A low degree of impairment of declarative memory is associated with early complete remission of depression CONTEXT Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions . OBJECTIVE To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in r and omized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events . DESIGN Observational study of 370 r and omized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane review s selected from the Cochrane Library , May 2001 . From a r and om sample of 167 Cochrane review s , 25 contained eligible meta-analyses ( assessed a binary outcome ; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment ) . The primary binary outcome from each meta- analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta- analysis . The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect , adverse events , and additional confounding factors ( method ological quality , control intervention , sample size , publication year , and place of publication ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Conclusions in trials , classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not . RESULTS The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16 % of trials funded by nonprofit organizations , 30 % of trials not reporting funding , 35 % of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations , and 51 % of trials funded by for-profit organizations ( P<.001 ; chi2 test ) . Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding , treatment effect , and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions . Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice ( odds ratio , 5.3 ; 95 % confidence interval , 2.0 - 14.4 ) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations . This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results . Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in r and omized trials are supported by data This study was aim ed at resolving the time course of clinical action of antidepressants ( ADs ) and the type of early behavioral changes that precede recovery in treatment-responsive depressed patients . The first goal was to identify , during the first 2 weeks of treatment , the onset of clinical actions of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ( SSRI ) , paroxetine , and the selective noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor , desipramine ( DMI ) . The second aim was to test the hypothesis that the two pharmacologic subtypes would induce different early behavioral changes in treatment-responsive patients . The design was a r and omized , parallel group , placebo-controlled , double-blind study for 6 weeks of treatment following a 1-week washout period . The study utilized measures of the major behavioral components of the depressive disorder as well as overall severity . The results indicated that the onset of clinical actions of DMI ranged from 3 to 13 days , averaged 13 days for paroxetine , and was 16–42 days for placebo . Furthermore , as hypothesized , the different types of ADs initially impacted different behavioral aspects of the disorder . After 1 week of treatment , DMI produced greater reductions in motor retardation and depressed mood than did paroxetine and placebo , and this difference persisted at the second week of treatment . Early improvement in depressed mood – motor retardation differentiated patients who responded to DMI after 6 weeks of treatment from those that did not . Paroxetine initially reduced anxiety more in responders than in nonresponders , and by the second week , significantly improved depressed mood and distressed expression in responders to a greater extent . Depressed patients who responded to placebo showed no consistent early pattern of behavior improvement . Early drug-specific behavioral changes were highly predictive of ultimate clinical response to the different ADs , results that could eventually be applied directly to clinical practice The localization of substance P in brain regions that coordinate stress responses and receive convergent monoaminergic innervation suggested that substance P antagonists might have psychotherapeutic properties . Like clinical ly used antidepressant and anxiolytic drugs , substance P antagonists suppressed  isolation-induced vocalizations in guinea pigs . In a placebo-controlled trial in patients with moderate to severe major depression , robust antidepressant effects of the substance P antagonist MK-869 were consistently observed . In pre clinical studies , substance P antagonists did not interact with monoamine systems in the manner seen with established antidepressant drugs . These findings suggest that substance P may play an important role in psychiatric disorders & NA ; Primary care patients with a major depressive disorder and 17‐item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression ( 17‐HAM‐D ) score > 18 were r and omized to 24 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine  30‐45 mg/day ( n= 99 ) or paroxetine 20‐30 mg/day ( n=98 ) . Both treatments were efficacious in improving depressive symptomatology , as assessed by group mean 17‐HAM‐D scores , percentages of HAM‐D responders and remitters and Clinical Global Improvement responders . The mirtazapine group showed statistically significantly larger decreases from baseline in group mean 17‐HAM‐D scores at weeks 1 , 2 and 4 , and the difference with the paroxetine group reached the level of clinical relevance at weeks 2 and 4 . Antidepressant efficacy was maintained throughout both the acute and continuation phase of treatment . Both treatments were well tolerated . The only adverse event with a statistically significantly higher incidence in the mirtazapine group was fatigue . Statistically significantly more paroxetine‐treated patients complained of increased sweating , headache and nausea . The results demonstrate that both mirtazapine and paroxetine were efficacious and well tolerated when used for 24 weeks in depressed patients treated in primary care . An observed difference in efficacy favouring mirtazapine between weeks 1 and 4 indicates that mirtazapine patients had improved earlier compared to those on paroxetine , and corroborates similar findings in other comparisons of mirtazapine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors Christiansen PE , Behnke K , Black CH , Öhrström JK , Bork‐Rasmussen H , Nilsson J. Paroxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depression  in general practice . Acta Psychiatr Sc and 1996 : 93 : 158–163 . © Munksgaard 1996 OBJECTIVE Duloxetine doses of 80 and 120 mg/day were assessed for efficacy and safety in the treatment of major depressive disorder ( MDD ) . METHODS In this r and omized , double-blind trial , patients age > or = 18 meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD were r and omized to placebo ( N=99 ) , duloxetine 80 mg/day ( N=93 ) , duloxetine 120 mg/day ( N=103 ) , or paroxetine 20 mg/day ( N=97 ) . The primary outcome measure was mean change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton rating scale for depression ( HAMD(17 ) ) total score after 8 weeks of treatment ; a number of secondary efficacy measures also were assessed . Safety and tolerability were assessed via collection and analysis of treatment-emergent adverse events ( TEAEs ) , vital signs , and weight . The Arizona sexual experiences scale was used to assess sexual functioning . Patients who had a > or = 30 % reduction from baseline in the HAMD(17 ) total score  at the end of the acute phase entered a 6-month continuation phase where they remained on the same treatment as they had taken during the acute phase ; efficacy and safety/tolerability outcomes were assessed during continuation treatment . RESULTS More than 87 % of patients completed the acute phase in each treatment group . Duloxetine-treated patients ( both doses ) showed significantly greater improvement ( P<0.05 ) in the HAMD(17 ) total score at week 8 compared with placebo . Paroxetine was not significantly different from placebo ( P=0.089 ) on mean change on the HAMD(17 ) .  Duloxetine 120 mg/day also showed significant improvement on most secondary efficacy measures ( six of nine ) compared with placebo while duloxetine 80 mg/day ( three of nine ) and paroxetine ( three of nine ) were significantly superior to placebo on fewer secondary measures . HAMD(17 ) mean change data from this study and an identical sister study were pooled as defined a priori for the purpose s of performing a non-inferiority test versus paroxetine . Both duloxetine doses met statistical criteria for non-inferiority to paroxetine .  TEAE reporting rates were low in all treatment groups and no deaths occurred in the acute or continuation phases . CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of duloxetine at doses of 80 and 120 mg/day in the treatment of MDD was demonstrated . Tolerability , as measured by TEAEs , and safety were similar to paroxetine 20 mg/day and consistent with previous published data on duloxetine in the treatment of MDD In a double-blind clinical study , electrocardiogram , blood pressure and systolic time intervals were measured in 40 depressive patients treated with either paroxetine ( 30 mg/day ) or amitriptyline ( 150 mg/day ) for 6 weeks . While amitriptyline significantly increased the heart rate , the QTc interval and the PEP/LVET ratio , paroxetine did not alter any of the cardiovascular parameters measured OBJECTIVE Authors studied the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine in elderly patients with major depression during an acute phase ( 8 weeks ) and an extension phase ( 16 weeks ) . METHODS Patients with major depression and without dementia , at least 65 years old , were eligible ; they were r and omized to mirtazapine or paroxetine once daily , with doses increasing over 42 days . Efficacy was assessed with the Ham-D and Clinical Global Impressions Scale , and tolerability was assessed from adverse events . RESULTS Of 255 patients r and omized , 126 on mirtazapine and 120 on paroxetine were included in the efficacy analysis . Differences favoring mirtazapine were observed for the mean change from baseline in Ham-D-17 score . Other significant differences were in the proportion of patients classified as responders ( 50 % decrease from baseline Ham-D-17 scores ) at Day 14 and in remission ( Ham-D-17 score of 7 or less ) at Day 42 . The median time to response was 26 days in the mirtazapine group and 40 days in the paroxetine group . The mirtazapine group also showed more reduction in Ham-D Factor I ( Anxiety/Somatization ) and Factor VI ( Sleep Disturbance ) scores . Efficacy of both drugs was maintained during the extension phase . Patients on paroxetine were more likely to discontinue therapy in the acute phase because of adverse events . CONCLUSION During the first weeks of treatment , antidepressant effects were more pronounced in the mirtazapine group , suggesting that mirtazapine has an earlier onset of action . Mirtazapine also demonstrated a better tolerability profile and represents a valuable option for the treatment of depression in elderly patients These data provide evidence for the antidepressant effic 
    Output:
    
agent
We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute ( six to 12 weeks ) , early ( one to four weeks ) , or longer term follow-up ( four to six months ) .
Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline , imipramine and older ADs as a class , but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum .
Some possibly clinical ly meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist , but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings .
In terms of early response to treatment ( one to four weeks ) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine .
However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point .
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: An open-label , non-r and omized , pilot study has been performed in in patients in need of treatment with an antipsychotic ( risperidone ) and an antidepressant ( mirtazapine )  with the objective to preliminarily assess a possible pharmacokinetic interaction and the tolerability of this combination . A 1 - 4-week single drug treatment phase ( risperidone 1 - 3 mg bid or mirtazapine 30 mg nocte ) was followed by a 2 - 4-week combined drug treatment phase at unchanged doses . Twelve patients were enrolled , nine of whom were treated with risperidone  in the single drug phase . Results of plasma level measurements are available for six patients and indicate that adding mirtazapine to risperidone does not alter steady-state plasma concentrations of risperidone and its 9-hydroxy metabolite . Data from one patient suggest that adding risperidone to mirtazapine does not result in clinical ly relevant changes in plasma concentrations of either compound . The combination was well tolerated and no major or relevant adverse events were observed . Adding risperidone to mirtazapine probably does not necessitate a change of the dosage of either drug , but more extensive investigations are needed INTRODUCTION The temporal course of recovery of depressed patients ' cognitive impairment is not fully understood . METHODS We used the California Verbal Learning Test ( CVLT ) to test declarative memory in 24 depressed patients before and after 35 days of antidepressive treatment as well as after long-term follow-up ( > 12 months ) in order to relate improvement of depression to recovery of cognitive impairment . RESULTS Patients with complete remission after 35 days had generally been less impaired at baseline . The disturbance of declarative memory in treatment responders as well as in non-responders did not change from baseline to end of treatment ( day 35 ) . However , our results revealed normal values in the CVLT sum score as well as in measures of short- and long-delay free-recall measures in both groups after long-term full remission . DISCUSSION We conclude that clinical response to antidepressive treatment precedes improvement of declarative memory . A low degree of impairment of declarative memory is associated with early complete remission of depression CONTEXT Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions . OBJECTIVE To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in r and omized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events . DESIGN Observational study of 370 r and omized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane review s selected from the Cochrane Library , May 2001 . From a r and om sample of 167 Cochrane review s , 25 contained eligible meta-analyses ( assessed a binary outcome ; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment ) . The primary binary outcome from each meta- analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta- analysis . The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect , adverse events , and additional confounding factors ( method ological quality , control intervention , sample size , publication year , and place of publication ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Conclusions in trials , classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not . RESULTS The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16 % of trials funded by nonprofit organizations , 30 % of trials not reporting funding , 35 % of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations , and 51 % of trials funded by for-profit organizations ( P<.001 ; chi2 test ) . Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding , treatment effect , and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions . Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice ( odds ratio , 5.3 ; 95 % confidence interval , 2.0 - 14.4 ) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations . This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results . Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in r and omized trials are supported by data This study was aim ed at resolving the time course of clinical action of antidepressants ( ADs ) and the type of early behavioral changes that precede recovery in treatment-responsive depressed patients . The first goal was to identify , during the first 2 weeks of treatment , the onset of clinical actions of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ( SSRI ) , paroxetine , and the selective noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor , desipramine ( DMI ) . The second aim was to test the hypothesis that the two pharmacologic subtypes would induce different early behavioral changes in treatment-responsive patients . The design was a r and omized , parallel group , placebo-controlled , double-blind study for 6 weeks of treatment following a 1-week washout period . The study utilized measures of the major behavioral components of the depressive disorder as well as overall severity . The results indicated that the onset of clinical actions of DMI ranged from 3 to 13 days , averaged 13 days for paroxetine , and was 16–42 days for placebo . Furthermore , as hypothesized , the different types of ADs initially impacted different behavioral aspects of the disorder . After 1 week of treatment , DMI produced greater reductions in motor retardation and depressed mood than did paroxetine and placebo , and this difference persisted at the second week of treatment . Early improvement in depressed mood – motor retardation differentiated patients who responded to DMI after 6 weeks of treatment from those that did not . Paroxetine initially reduced anxiety more in responders than in nonresponders , and by the second week , significantly improved depressed mood and distressed expression in responders to a greater extent . Depressed patients who responded to placebo showed no consistent early pattern of behavior improvement . Early drug-specific behavioral changes were highly predictive of ultimate clinical response to the different ADs , results that could eventually be applied directly to clinical practice The localization of substance P in brain regions that coordinate stress responses and receive convergent monoaminergic innervation suggested that substance P antagonists might have psychotherapeutic properties . Like clinical ly used antidepressant and anxiolytic drugs , substance P antagonists suppressed  isolation-induced vocalizations in guinea pigs . In a placebo-controlled trial in patients with moderate to severe major depression , robust antidepressant effects of the substance P antagonist MK-869 were consistently observed . In pre clinical studies , substance P antagonists did not interact with monoamine systems in the manner seen with established antidepressant drugs . These findings suggest that substance P may play an important role in psychiatric disorders & NA ; Primary care patients with a major depressive disorder and 17‐item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression ( 17‐HAM‐D ) score > 18 were r and omized to 24 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine  30‐45 mg/day ( n= 99 ) or paroxetine 20‐30 mg/day ( n=98 ) . Both treatments were efficacious in improving depressive symptomatology , as assessed by group mean 17‐HAM‐D scores , percentages of HAM‐D responders and remitters and Clinical Global Improvement responders . The mirtazapine group showed statistically significantly larger decreases from baseline in group mean 17‐HAM‐D scores at weeks 1 , 2 and 4 , and the difference with the paroxetine group reached the level of clinical relevance at weeks 2 and 4 . Antidepressant efficacy was maintained throughout both the acute and continuation phase of treatment . Both treatments were well tolerated . The only adverse event with a statistically significantly higher incidence in the mirtazapine group was fatigue . Statistically significantly more paroxetine‐treated patients complained of increased sweating , headache and nausea . The results demonstrate that both mirtazapine and paroxetine were efficacious and well tolerated when used for 24 weeks in depressed patients treated in primary care . An observed difference in efficacy favouring mirtazapine between weeks 1 and 4 indicates that mirtazapine patients had improved earlier compared to those on paroxetine , and corroborates similar findings in other comparisons of mirtazapine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors Christiansen PE , Behnke K , Black CH , Öhrström JK , Bork‐Rasmussen H , Nilsson J. Paroxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depression  in general practice . Acta Psychiatr Sc and 1996 : 93 : 158–163 . © Munksgaard 1996 OBJECTIVE Duloxetine doses of 80 and 120 mg/day were assessed for efficacy and safety in the treatment of major depressive disorder ( MDD ) . METHODS In this r and omized , double-blind trial , patients age > or = 18 meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD were r and omized to placebo ( N=99 ) , duloxetine 80 mg/day ( N=93 ) , duloxetine 120 mg/day ( N=103 ) , or paroxetine 20 mg/day ( N=97 ) . The primary outcome measure was mean change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton rating scale for depression ( HAMD(17 ) ) total score after 8 weeks of treatment ; a number of secondary efficacy measures also were assessed . Safety and tolerability were assessed via collection and analysis of treatment-emergent adverse events ( TEAEs ) , vital signs , and weight . The Arizona sexual experiences scale was used to assess sexual functioning . Patients who had a > or = 30 % reduction from baseline in the HAMD(17 ) total score  at the end of the acute phase entered a 6-month continuation phase where they remained on the same treatment as they had taken during the acute phase ; efficacy and safety/tolerability outcomes were assessed during continuation treatment . RESULTS More than 87 % of patients completed the acute phase in each treatment group . Duloxetine-treated patients ( both doses ) showed significantly greater improvement ( P<0.05 ) in the HAMD(17 ) total score at week 8 compared with placebo . Paroxetine was not significantly different from placebo ( P=0.089 ) on mean change on the HAMD(17 ) .  Duloxetine 120 mg/day also showed significant improvement on most secondary efficacy measures ( six of nine ) compared with placebo while duloxetine 80 mg/day ( three of nine ) and paroxetine ( three of nine ) were significantly superior to placebo on fewer secondary measures . HAMD(17 ) mean change data from this study and an identical sister study were pooled as defined a priori for the purpose s of performing a non-inferiority test versus paroxetine . Both duloxetine doses met statistical criteria for non-inferiority to paroxetine .  TEAE reporting rates were low in all treatment groups and no deaths occurred in the acute or continuation phases . CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of duloxetine at doses of 80 and 120 mg/day in the treatment of MDD was demonstrated . Tolerability , as measured by TEAEs , and safety were similar to paroxetine 20 mg/day and consistent with previous published data on duloxetine in the treatment of MDD In a double-blind clinical study , electrocardiogram , blood pressure and systolic time intervals were measured in 40 depressive patients treated with either paroxetine ( 30 mg/day ) or amitriptyline ( 150 mg/day ) for 6 weeks . While amitriptyline significantly increased the heart rate , the QTc interval and the PEP/LVET ratio , paroxetine did not alter any of the cardiovascular parameters measured OBJECTIVE Authors studied the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine in elderly patients with major depression during an acute phase ( 8 weeks ) and an extension phase ( 16 weeks ) . METHODS Patients with major depression and without dementia , at least 65 years old , were eligible ; they were r and omized to mirtazapine or paroxetine once daily , with doses increasing over 42 days . Efficacy was assessed with the Ham-D and Clinical Global Impressions Scale , and tolerability was assessed from adverse events . RESULTS Of 255 patients r and omized , 126 on mirtazapine and 120 on paroxetine were included in the efficacy analysis . Differences favoring mirtazapine were observed for the mean change from baseline in Ham-D-17 score . Other significant differences were in the proportion of patients classified as responders ( 50 % decrease from baseline Ham-D-17 scores ) at Day 14 and in remission ( Ham-D-17 score of 7 or less ) at Day 42 . The median time to response was 26 days in the mirtazapine group and 40 days in the paroxetine group . The mirtazapine group also showed more reduction in Ham-D Factor I ( Anxiety/Somatization ) and Factor VI ( Sleep Disturbance ) scores . Efficacy of both drugs was maintained during the extension phase . Patients on paroxetine were more likely to discontinue therapy in the acute phase because of adverse events . CONCLUSION During the first weeks of treatment , antidepressant effects were more pronounced in the mirtazapine group , suggesting that mirtazapine has an earlier onset of action . Mirtazapine also demonstrated a better tolerability profile and represents a valuable option for the treatment of depression in elderly patients These data provide evidence for the antidepressant effic 
    Output:
    