The Selective GABA Reuptake Inhibitor Tiagabine for the Treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Results of a Placebo-Controlled Study
J Clin Psychiatry 2005;66(11):1401-1408
© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
Purchase This PDF for $40.00
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($86) or print + online ($156 individual).
With your subscription, receive a free PDF collection of the NCDEU Festschrift articles. Hurry! This offer ends December 31, 2011.
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Click here to login.
Did you forget your password?
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send email
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of tiagabine, a selective g-aminobutyric acid (GABA) reuptake inhibitor, in adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).
Method: This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients with GAD (DSM-IV). Tiagabine was initiated at 4 mg/day and then flexibly dosed twice a day to a maximum dose of 16 mg/day. Study drug was tapered after week 8 in decrements of 2 mg every other day. Efficacy assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) and Sheehan Disability Scale. Adverse events, sexual functioning, and change in depressive symptoms were monitored. Data were collected from May 2003 to January 2004.
Results: A total of 266 patients (tiagabine, N = 134; placebo, N = 132) were included in safety analyses; 260 patients (tiagabine N = 130; placebo N = 130) were included in efficacy analyses. Tiagabine reduced symptoms of GAD according to the observed case and mixed models repeated-measures (MMRM) analyses but not the primary last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) analysis. At final visit, the reduction from baseline in mean HAM-A total score was 11.8 for tiagabine, compared with 10.2 for placebo (LOCF analysis, p = .27). In a post hoc MMRM analysis, a significant difference in the mean reduction in HAM-A total score over the efficacy evaluation period was found, favoring tiagabine over placebo (p < .01). Tiagabine had an early onset of effect, as shown by significant reduction from baseline in mean HAM-A total score compared with placebo at week 1 (observed cases, p < .05). Tiagabine was generally well tolerated and not associated with changes in sexual functioning or depressive status. Symptoms of a discontinuation syndrome during taper were not observed.
Conclusion: The primary LOCF analysis was negative; however, results from the observed case and MMRM analyses suggest that tiagabine may be a useful treatment option for adult patients diagnosed with GAD. These findings warrant further evaluation in randomized clinical studies.