Posted by SLS on May 20, 2010, at 6:26:16 [reposted on May 20, 2010, at 18:36:26 | original URL]
In reply to Re: Gone with trimipramine, posted by linkadge on May 19, 2010, at 20:10:49
> I don't see any reason why it would be less effective.
However, it is so few times that we can yet predict the therapeutic value of a drug based upon what we think we know. Strattera and reboxetine suck for depression, yet they had the "right" properties to be effective according to what are probably outdated and impotent theories.
It seems that we have two head-to-head comparisons of ritanserin to another drug for treating depression. There is the one you cited that speaks of depression without stating the use of DSM criteria, and another for a DSM diagnosis of dysthymia. In the latter study, ritanserin was found to be inferior to imipramine. I don't know how relevant this is, though, as dysthymia is a different disorder than major depressive disorder. The former study fails to describe the relative potencies of its two test drugs. One thing seems clear. Ritanserin has not been thoroughly evaluated for treating major depression. You may be right about ritanserin.
> The reasons why one drug proves to be utilized more clinicaly is not always as strightforward as one might think.
You sure are right about that. Clorgyline is a prime example. This drug might be the most effective antidepressant yet tested, but it languishes in the laboratory because no one would want to develop a drug without a patent.
- ScottThe measure of achievement lies not in how high the mountain,
but in how hard the climb.The measure of success lies only in how high one feels he must
climb to get there.
poster:SLS
thread:948075
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/neuro/20100223/msgs/948101.html