A note on relation between Azukawa izometries at one point and global biholomorphisms

We prove that under certain assumptions holomorphic functions which are Azukawa isometries at one point are in fact biholomorphisms

A comparison of nefazodone, the cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy, and their combination for the treatment of chronic depression

Background Patients with chronic forms of major depression are difficult to treat, and the relative efficacy of medications and psychotherapy is uncertain. Methods We randomly assigned 681 adults with a chronic nonpsychotic major depressive disorder to 12 weeks of outpatient treatment with nefazodone (maximal dose, 600 mg per day), the cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy (16 to 20 sessions), or both. At base line, all patients had scores of at least 20 on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (indicating clinically significant depression). Remission was defined as a score of 8 or less at weeks 10 and 12. For patients who did not have remission, a satisfactory response was defined as a reduction in the score by at least 50 percent from base line and a score of 15 or less. Raters were unaware of the patients’ treatment assignments. Results Of the 681 patients, 662 attended at least one treatment session and were included in the analysis of response. The overall rate of response (both remission and satisfactory response) was 48 percent in both the nefazodone group and the psychotherapy group, as compared with 73 percent in the combined-treatment group (P Conclusions Although about half of patients with chronic forms of major depression have a response to short-term treatment with either nefazodone or a cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy, the combination of the two is significantly more efficacious than either treatment alone

Efficacy of Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus Oral Antidepressant Treatment for Relapse Prevention in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Controlled studies have shown short-term efficacy of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but long-term effects remain to be established. Objective: To assess the efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant compared with an oral antidepressant plus placebo nasal spray in delaying relapse of depressive symptoms in patients with TRD in stable remission after an induction and optimization course of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study conducted from October 6, 2015, to February 15, 2018, at outpatient referral centers, 705 adults with prospectively confirmed TRD were enrolled; 455 entered the optimization phase and were treated with esketamine nasal spray (56 or 84 mg) plus an oral antidepressant. After 16 weeks of esketamine treatment, 297 who achieved stable remission or stable response entered the randomized withdrawal phase. Interventions: Patients who achieved stable remission and those who achieved stable response (without remission) were randomized 1:1 to continue esketamine nasal spray or discontinue esketamine treatment and switch to placebo nasal spray, with oral antidepressant treatment continued in each group. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to relapse was examined in patients who achieved stable remission, as assessed using a weighted combination log-rank test. Results: Among the 297 adults (mean age [SD], 46.3 [11.13] years; 197 [66.3%] female) who entered the randomized maintenance phase, 176 achieved stable remission; 24 (26.7%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 39 (45.3%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P =.003, number needed to treat [NNT], 6). Among the 121 who achieved stable response, 16 (25.8%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 34 (57.6%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P <.001, NNT, 4). Esketamine and antidepressant treatment decreased the risk of relapse by 51% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84) among patients who achieved stable remission and 70% (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55) among those who achieved stable response compared with antidepressant and placebo treatment. The most common adverse events reported for esketamine-treated patients after randomization were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness (incidence, 20.4%-27.0%), each reported in fewer patients (<7%) treated with an antidepressant and placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: For patients with TRD who experienced remission or response after esketamine treatment, continuation of esketamine nasal spray in addition to oral antidepressant treatment resulted in clinically meaningful superiority in delaying relapse compared with antidepressant plus placebo

Three year naturalistic outcome study of panic disorder patients treated with paroxetine

BACKGROUND: This naturalistic open label follow-up study had three objectives: 1) To observe the course of illness in Panic Disorder patients receiving long-term versus intermediate-term paroxetine treatment 2) To compare the relapse rates and side-effect profile after long-term paroxetine treatment between patients with Panic Disorder and Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia. 3) To observe paroxetine's tolerability over a 24 month period. METHODS: 143 patients with panic disorder (PD), with or without agoraphobia, successfully finished a short-term (ie 12 week) trial of paroxetine treatment. All patients then continued to receive paroxetine maintenance therapy for a total of 12 months. At the end of this period, 72 of the patients chose to discontinue paroxetine pharmacotherapy and agreed to be monitored throughout a one year discontinuation follow-up phase. The remaining 71 patients continued on paroxetine for an additional 12 months and then were monitored, as in the first group, for another year while medication-free. The primary limitation of our study is that the subgroups of patients receiving 12 versus 24 months of maintenance paroxetine therapy were selected according to individual patient preference and therefore were not assigned in a randomized manner. RESULTS: Only 21 of 143 patients (14%) relapsed during the one year medication discontinuation follow-up phase. There were no significant differences in relapse rates between the patients who received intermediate-term (up to 12 months) paroxetine and those who chose the long-term course (24 month paroxetine treatment). 43 patients (30.1%) reported sexual dysfunction. The patients exhibited an average weight gain of 5.06 kg. All patients who eventually relapsed demonstrated significantly greater weight increase (7.3 kg) during the treatment phase. CONCLUSIONS: The extension of paroxetine maintenance treatment from 12 to 24 months did not seem to further decrease the risk of relapse after medication discontinuation. Twenty-four month paroxetine treatment is accompanied by sexual side effects and weight gain similar to those observed in twelve month treatment

Tolerability and safety of fluvoxamine and other antidepressants

Selective serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)] reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and the 5-HT noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, venlafaxine, are mainstays in treatment for depression. The highly specific actions of SSRIs of enhancing serotonergic neurotransmission appears to explain their benefit, while lack of direct actions on other neurotransmitter systems is responsible for their superior safety profile compared with tricyclic antidepressants. Although SSRIs (and venlafaxine) have similar adverse effects, certain differences are emerging. Fluvoxamine may have fewer effects on sexual dysfunction and sleep pattern. SSRIs have a cardiovascular safety profile superior to that of tricyclic antidepressants for patients with cardiovascular disease; fluvoxamine is safe in patients with cardiovascular disease and in the elderly. A discontinuation syndrome may develop upon abrupt SSRI cessation. SSRIs are more tolerable than tricyclic antidepressants in overdose, and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that they are associated with an increased risk of suicide. Although the literature suggests that there are no clinically significant differences in efficacy amongst SSRIs, treatment decisions need to be based on considerations such as patient acceptability, response history and toxicity

Treatment of bipolar disorder: a complex treatment for a multi-faceted disorder

Background: Manic-depression or bipolar disorder (BD) is a multi-faceted illness with an inevitably complex treatment. Methods: This article summarizes the current status of our knowledge and practice of its treatment. Results: It is widely accepted that lithium is moderately useful during all phases of bipolar illness and it might possess a specific effectiveness on suicidal prevention. Both first and second generation antipsychotics are widely used and the FDA has approved olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone and aripiprazole for the treatment of acute mania. These could also be useful in the treatment of bipolar depression, but only limited data exists so far to support the use of quetiapine monotherapy or the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination. Some, but not all, anticonvulsants possess a broad spectrum of effectiveness, including mixed dysphoric and rapid-cycling forms. Lamotrigine may be effective in the treatment of depression but not mania. Antidepressant use is controversial. Guidelines suggest their cautious use in combination with an antimanic agent, because they are supposed to induce switching to mania or hypomania, mixed episodes and rapid cycling. Conclusion: The first-line psychosocial intervention in BD is psychoeducation, followed by cognitive-behavioral therapy. Other treatment options include Electroconvulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is a gap between the evidence base, which comes mostly from monotherapy trials, and clinical practice, where complex treatment regimens are the rule

Level of response and safety of pharmacological monotherapy in the treatment of acute bipolar I disorder phases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In recent years, combinations of pharmacological treatments have become common for the treatment of bipolar disorder type I (BP I); however, this practice is usually not evidence-based and rarely considers monotherapy drug regimen (MDR) as an option in the treatment of acute phases of BP I. Therefore, we evaluated comparative data of commonly prescribed MDRs for both manic and depressive phases of BP I. Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the ClinicalStudyResults.org and other data sources were searched from 1949 to March 2009 for placebo and active controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Risk ratios (RRs) for response, remission, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs), lack of efficacy, or discontinuation due to any cause, and the number needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH) were calculated for each medication individually and for all evaluable trials combined. The authors included 31 RCTs in the analyses comparing a MDR with placebo or with active treatment for acute mania, and 9 RCTs comparing a MDR with placebo or with active treatment for bipolar depression. According to the collected evidence, most of the MDRs when compared to placebo showed significant response and remission rates in acute mania. In the case of bipolar depression only quetiapine and, to a lesser extent, olanzapine showed efficacy as MDR. Overall, MDRs were well tolerated with low discontinuation rates due to any cause or AE, although AE profiles differed among treatments. We concluded that most MDRs were efficacious and safe in the treatment of manic episodes, but very few MDRs have demonstrated being efficacious for bipolar depressive episodes