Key result
Classifying mianserin with maprotiline is a gross error, as only 4 of 47 patients in the criticized study received mianserin, a chemically novel tetracyclic compound.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This letter highlights the pharmacological and chemical differences between mianserin and other tricyclic/tetracyclic antidepressants, criticizing their grouping in a previous cardiovascular study.
To the Editor.— The article Cardiovascular Effects of Tricyclic and Tetracyclic Antidepressants by Burckhardt et al (239:213, 1978) is a condensed version of a report that appeared previously in theSchweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift,1where it received valid criticism.2The conclusions reached are inaccurate and misleading, since the authors do not distinguish between preparations and consider them as congeners of one group of tricyclic or tetracyclic antidepressants. For maprotiline this is understandable, since this compound is, in fact, closely similar chemically, pharmacologically, and in clinical effect to the tricyclic antidepressants.3To classify maprotiline together with mianserin is a gross error when only four of 47 patients received mianserin. The latter compound is the first member of a chemically novel group of tetracyclic compounds unrelated to maprotiline.4Experimental studies in intact animals4and in isolated organs,5in healthy individuals,4and in patients with cardiac disease
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feilx Jansen (1978) reported a letter. Mianserin vs. Tricyclic antidepressants and maprotiline was evaluated. Classifying mianserin with maprotiline is a gross error, as only 4 of 47 patients in the criticized study received mianserin, a chemically novel tetracyclic compound.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: