Labor market affiliation of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms: a population-based matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) suffer from substantial symptoms and risk of debilitating complications, yet observational data on their labor market affiliation are scarce. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive cohort study using data from Danish nationwide registries, including patients diagnosed with MPN in 2010-2016. Each patient was matched with up to ten comparators without MPN on age, sex, level of education, and region of residence. We assessed pre- and post-diagnosis labor market affiliation, defined as working, unemployed, or receiving sickness benefit, disability pension, retirement pension, or other health-related benefits. Labor market affiliation was assessed weekly from two years pre-diagnosis until death, emigration, or 31 December 2018. For patients and comparators, we reported percentage point (pp) changes in labor market affiliation cross-sectionally from week -104 pre-diagnosis to week 104 post-diagnosis. RESULTS: The study included 3,342 patients with MPN and 32,737 comparators. From two years pre-diagnosis until two years post-diagnosis, a larger reduction in the proportion working was observed among patients than comparators (essential thrombocythemia: 10.2 [95% CI: 6.3-14.1] vs. 6.8 [95% CI: 5.5-8.0] pp; polycythemia vera: 9.6 [95% CI: 5.9-13.2] vs. 7.4 [95% CI: 6.2-8.7] pp; myelofibrosis: 8.1 [95% CI: 3.0-13.2] vs. 5.8 [95% CI: 4.2-7.5] pp; and unclassifiable MPN: 8.0 [95% CI: 3.0-13.0] vs. 7.4 [95% CI: 5.7-9.1] pp). Correspondingly, an increase in the proportion of patients receiving sickness benefits including other health-related benefits was evident around the time of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that Danish patients with essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, myelofibrosis, and unclassifiable MPN had slightly impaired labor market affiliation compared with a population of the same age and sex. From two years pre-diagnosis to two years post-diagnosis, we observed a larger reduction in the proportion of patients with MPN working and a greater proportion receiving sickness benefits compared with matched individuals.

Healthcare resource utilization in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms: A Danish nationwide matched cohort study.

Few studies have assessed healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in patients with Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) using a matched cohort design. Further, no detailed assessment of HRU in the years preceding an MPN diagnosis exists. We conducted a registry-based nationwide Danish cohort study, including patients with essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, myelofibrosis, and unclassifiable MPN diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2016. HRU data were summarized annually from 2 years before MPN diagnosis until emigration, death, or end of study (December 2017). We included 3342 MPN patients and 32 737 comparisons without an MPN diagnosis, matched on sex, age, region of residence, and level of education. During the study period, the difference in HRU (rate ratio) between patients and matched comparisons ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 for general practitioner contacts, 0.9 to 2.2 for hospitalizations, 0.9 to 3.8 for inpatient days, 1.0 to 4.0 for outpatient visits, 1.3 to 2.1 for emergency department visits, and 1.0 to 4.1 for treatments/examinations. In conclusion, MPN patients had overall higher HRU than the matched comparisons throughout the follow-up period (maximum 8 years). Further, MPN patients had substantially increased HRU in both the primary and secondary healthcare sector in the 2 years preceding the diagnosis.

Socioeconomic cost of AML in Sweden-A population-based study using multiple nation-wide registers.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with a high economic and clinical burden. Recently novel therapies have been added to standard treatment regimens. Here, we evaluated the economic impact of AML up until the introduction of these novel therapies. Individual data on 2954 adult patients diagnosed from 2007 to 2015 from five Swedish national population-based registers were used, enabling analyses from diagnosis to either death or 5-year follow-up for survival, inpatient and outpatient costs, costs of prescribed drugs, sick leave, and early retirement. Costs per patient were stratified by age group, treatment options, and FLT3-ITD status. The expected 5-year costs per patient differed substantially between age groups. Patients aged 18-59 years had an expected mean cost per patient of €170,748, while age groups 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and >80 years incurred an expected mean cost of €92,252, €48,344, and €24,118, respectively, over 5 years. Patients <60 years undergoing stem cell transplantation had the highest costs (€228,525 over 5 years). About 60% of costs for these patients were from hospitalizations and 20% from sick leave and early retirement; cost per day was highest from the first admission to complete remission. This study provides a baseline for socioeconomic evaluations of novel therapies in AML in Sweden.

Prospective Study of Chromogranin A as a Predictor of Progression in Patients with Pancreatic, Small-Intestinal, and Unknown Primary Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies are conflicting but most of them report that an increase in plasma chromogranin A (CgA) predicts tumor progression in neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients. Prospectively, we investigated if a change in plasma CgA is associated with tumor burden changes in NET patients with disseminated disease. METHODS: We included 239 patients treated at 5 NET centers from December 2010 to December 2013. CgA was measured within 6 weeks of a CT or MRI in a patient undergoing at least 2 scan examinations performed over a period of 1-24 months. In a post hoc analysis, CgA measured 3-6 months prior to the CT/MRI was analyzed. Changes in tumor size were evaluated by RECIST1.1. A 25% change in CgA was chosen to discriminate between increased, decreased, or unchanged levels. RESULTS: In 671 events (2 CT/MRI scans and 2 corresponding CgA measurements), we found a weak positive correlation between the RECIST 1.1 responses and change in plasma CgA from baseline (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient: 0.15; p < 0.05). Of 304 events in the post hoc analysis, 58 showed progression, 228 showed stable disease, and 18 showed regression, with a median change in CgA of 19% (IQR: 57 to -20%), -12% (23 to -38%), and -73% (-55 to -83%), respectively. The correlation coefficient for all sites was 0.17 (p = 0.003), and it was 0.16 (p = 0.07), 0.18 (p = 0.04), and 0.20 (p = 0.21) for small-intestinal (n = 137), pancreatic (n = 123), and unknown primary NET (n = 40), respectively. In the 58 patients showing tumor progression, the sensitivity and specificity of an increased CgA concentration were 36 and 82%, respectively, with positive and negative predictive values of 32 and 85%. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study of gastroenteropancreatic NET patients, we observed only a weak association between a change in plasma CgA and changes in tumor burden. CgA as a single biomarker was thus inadequate to predict tumor progression.

Prediction and modeling of effects on the QTc interval for clinical safety margin assessment, based on single-ascending-dose study data with AZD3839.

Corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation in humans is usually predictable based on results from preclinical findings. This study confirms the signal from preclinical cardiac repolarization models (human ether-a-go-go-related gene, guinea pig monophasic action potential, and dog telemetry) on the clinical effects on the QTc interval. A thorough QT/QTc study is generally required for bioavailable pharmaceutical compounds to determine whether or not a drug shows a QTc effect above a threshold of regulatory interest. However, as demonstrated in this AZD3839 [(S)-1-(2-(difluoromethyl)pyridin-4-yl)-4-fluoro-1-(3-(pyrimidin-5-yl)phenyl)-1H-isoindol-3-amine hemifumarate] single-ascending-dose (SAD) study, high-resolution digital electrocardiogram data, in combination with adequate efficacy biomarker and pharmacokinetic data and nonlinear mixed effects modeling, can provide the basis to safely explore the margins to allow for robust modeling of clinical effect versus the electrophysiological risk marker. We also conclude that a carefully conducted SAD study may provide reliable data for effective early strategic decision making ahead of the thorough QT/QTc study.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of α4ß 2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist AZD1446 (TC-6683) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

RATIONALE: Stimulation of nicotinic cholinergic systems has been shown to alleviate ADHD symptoms and to improve cognitive performance. AZD1446 is a selective α4ß2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist with potential effect on the symptoms of ADHD. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of AZD1446 in adults with ADHD treated for 2 weeks. METHOD: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. Participants were 79 adults with ADHD, grouped according to their use of nicotine-containing products. Nicotine non-users received placebo and two of three AZD1446 treatment regimens (80 mg tid, 80 mg qd, 10 mg tid). Nicotine users received placebo, AZD1446 80 mg tid and 80 mg qd. Efficacy measures included the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale and cognitive measures of immediate and delayed verbal episodic memory, learning, attention, working memory, executive functioning, and spatial problem solving (CogState computerized test battery). RESULTS: There was no significant effect of AZD1446 on any of the clinical scores irrespective of dose, schedule, or concomitant use of nicotine products. A statistically significant improvement was seen on the Groton Maze Learning Task, a measure of executive functioning, in nicotine non-users after treatment with AZD1446 80 mg qd. CONCLUSIONS: AZD1446 was well tolerated, but did not significantly improve ADHD symptoms after 2 weeks of treatment compared to placebo. While the present study does not support the therapeutic utility of AZD1446 in ADHD, its potential pro-cognitive effects remain to be explored in other neuropsychiatric disorders.

A randomised, placebo-controlled 52-week trial of continued quetiapine treatment in recently depressed patients with bipolar I and bipolar II disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the longer-term efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar depression in a preplanned pooling of data from the EMBOLDEN I and II studies. METHODS: Patients (N = 584) with bipolar I or II disorder (most recent episode: depressed) who achieved remission after 8 weeks of treatment with quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/day) were randomised to the same quetiapine dose or placebo for 26-52 weeks or until mood event recurrence. RESULTS: The risk for recurrence of a mood event was significantly lower with quetiapine than placebo (HR 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69); < 0.001). Quetiapine was associated with a lower risk for recurrence of depressive events (HR 0.43 (95% CI: 0.30-0.62); P < 0.001) but recurrence of manic/hypomanic events was not significantly reduced (HR 0.75 (95% CI: 0.45-1.24; P = 0.263). There was a lower risk of recurrence of mood events in bipolar I (HR 0.58 (95% CI: 0.41-0.82), P = 0.002) and bipolar II patients (HR 0.33 (95% CI: 0.18-0.60), P < 0.001). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were 4.3, 4.0 and 1.7% for quetiapine 300 mg/day, 600 mg/day and placebo, respectively. Safety data, including changes in lipid and glucose parameters, were consistent with the recognized profile of quetiapine. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar depression is maintained during continued treatment for 26-52 weeks. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated.

Population pharmacokinetics and safety of AZD1446, a neuronal nicotinic receptor agonist, administered in healthy volunteers.

AZD1446 is a highly selective agonist of central α4ß2 and α2ß2 neuronal nicotinic receptors. The compound has been shown to improve cognition in preclinical studies and thus has potential for treatment of cognitive disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). This report presents the pharmacokinetics of AZD1446 based on a pooled population pharmacokinetic analysis of five studies in Caucasian and Japanese healthy volunteers. The model described the inter-individual and inter-occasion variability as well as identified the impact of covariates such as age and ethnicity on the parameters. Single doses of AZD1446 ranged between 0.5 and 350 mg and the multiple-dose regimens ranged between 10 and 100 mg four times daily. The maximum duration was 4 weeks. AZD1446 exhibited modest variability in CL/F. Compared with Caucasian subjects, Japanese subjects had approximately 25% higher rate of absorption and higher renal clearance as well as volume of distribution, resulting in a similar half-life. Compared with elderly subjects, young subjects had approximately 25% lower rate of absorption. Due to lower creatinine clearance, renal clearance was lower in elderly subjects. AZD1446 was safe and well tolerated, with nausea, headache and dizziness as the most frequently reported adverse events.

Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of plasma Aß40 and Aß42 following single oral doses of the BACE1 inhibitor AZD3839 to healthy volunteers.

Modulating deposition of Aß-containing plaques in the brain may be beneficial in treating Alzheimer's disease. ß-site amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) inhibitors have been shown to reduce Aß in plasma and CSF in healthy volunteers. In this study safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics that is reduction of the plasma biomarkers Aß40 and Aß42 , of the BACE1 inhibitor AZD3839 were evaluated. Single oral ascending doses (1-300 mg) of AZD3839 were administered to 54 young healthy volunteers in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The data was analyzed using non-linear mixed effects modeling. AZD3839 reduced Aß40 and Aß42 in plasma with estimated potencies (EC50 ) of 46 and 59 nM, respectively, and a maximum effect of approximately 55%. This was in excellent agreement with the concentration-response relationships obtained in mouse and guinea pig. AZD3839 exposure displayed non-linear kinetics, described by a three-compartment model with a saturated binding compartment and an increase in bioavailability with dose. AZD3839 was safe, although, a dose-dependent QTcF prolongation was observed (mean 20 milliseconds at 300 mg). In conclusion, AZD3839 reduced plasma Aß40 and Aß42 , demonstrating clinical peripheral proof of mechanism. Pre-clinical models were predictive for the effect of AZD3839 on the human plasma biomarker in a strictly quantitative manner.

Continuation of quetiapine versus switching to placebo or lithium for maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder (Trial 144: a randomized controlled study).

OBJECTIVE: Quetiapine, combined with lithium or divalproex, demonstrates efficacy in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of quetiapine monotherapy as maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder compared with switching to placebo or lithium. METHOD: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with DSM-IV-diagnosed bipolar I disorder and a current or recent manic, depressive, or mixed episode received open-label quetiapine (300-800 mg/d) for 4-24 weeks. Patients achieving stabilization were randomized to continue quetiapine or to switch to placebo or lithium (0.6-1.2 mEq/L) for up to 104 weeks in a double-blind trial. Outcome measures included times to recurrence of any mood event (primary outcome measure), manic event, or depressive event. Safety assessments included adverse events and laboratory values. The study was terminated early after planned interim analysis provided positive results. The study was conducted between March 2005 and July 2007. RESULTS: Of 2,438 patients starting open-label quetiapine, 1,226 (50.3%) were randomized to double-blind treatment, including 1,172 (95.6%) in the intent-to-treat population. Time to recurrence of any mood event was significantly longer for quetiapine versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38; P < .0001) and for lithium versus placebo (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59; P < .0001). Quetiapine and lithium significantly increased time to recurrence of both manic events (quetiapine: HR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001; lithium: HR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.53; P < .0001) and depressive events (quetiapine: HR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.44; P < .0001; lithium: HR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.84; P < .004) compared with placebo. Overall rates of adverse events were generally similar between treatment groups, and safety findings for quetiapine were consistent with its known profile. CONCLUSIONS: In patients stabilized during acute quetiapine treatment, continuation of quetiapine significantly increased time to recurrence of any mood, manic, or depressive event compared with switching to placebo. Switching to lithium was also more effective than placebo for the prevention of manic and depressive events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00314184.

Effectiveness of psychotropic medications in the maintenance phase of bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of maintenance treatments for bipolar disorder. Placebo-controlled or active comparator bipolar maintenance clinical trials of ≥6 months' duration with at least 15 patients/treatment group were identified using Medline, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases (1993 to July 2010). The main outcome measure was relative risk for relapse for patients in remission. Twenty trials (5,364 patients) were identified. Overall, lithium and quetiapine were the most studied agents (eight and five trials, respectively). The majority of studies included patients who had previously responded to treatment for an acute episode. All interventions, with the exception of perphenazine+mood stabilizer, showed a relative risk for manic/mixed or depressive relapse below 1.0, although there was variation in the statistical significance of the findings vs. placebo. No monotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk for both manic/mixed and depressed relapse. Of the combination treatments, only quetiapine+lithium/divalproex, was associated with a significantly reduced risk vs. comparator (placebo+lithium/valproate) for relapse at both the manic/mixed and depressed poles of bipolar illness. Limitations for the analysis include differences in study durations and definitions of relapse. In conclusion, available maintenance therapies show considerable variation in efficacy. The efficacy of lithium and divalproex has been confirmed, but newer therapies, such as a number of atypical antipsychotics were also shown to be effective in bipolar disorder. Efficacy of all maintenance interventions needs to be balanced against the safety and tolerability profiles of individual agents.

Treatment options for bipolar depression: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials.

This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of treatments of bipolar depression. Trials were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases (1993 to July 2008). The outcome measures included mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) total scores, and rates of response and remission. Overall, 19 publications were included. Medications included quetiapine, lamotrigine, paroxetine, lithium, olanzapine, aripiprazole, phenelzine, and divalproex. The most trials were identified for quetiapine (5) and lamotrigine (6). Not all medications were associated with symptomatic improvement (significant reduction in MADRS/HAM-D total scores vs placebo), with lamotrigine, paroxetine, aripiprazole, and lithium not being different from placebo. Highest reductions in MADRS scores versus placebo were reported for the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (1 trial: -6.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.59 to -3.61; P = 0.000) and quetiapine monotherapy (5 trials: for 300 mg/d, -4.8; 95% CI, -6.18 to -3.49; P = 0.000; for 600 mg/d, -4.8; 95% CI, -6.22 to -3.28; P = 0.000), with quetiapine monotherapy also showing the highest reduction in HAM-D scores (4 trials: -4.0; 95% CI, -5.0 to -2.9; P = 0.000). All medications except paroxetine, lithium, aripiprazole, and phenelzine significantly improved the ratio of probabilities of response (overall rate, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40) and remission (1.32; 95% CI, 1.20-1.45) versus placebo. Variability in efficacy exists between treatments of bipolar depression. Quetiapine and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination showed the greatest symptomatic improvement. Efficacy considerations will need to be balanced against safety and tolerability of the individual agents.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine and paroxetine as monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression (EMBOLDEN II).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and paroxetine monotherapy for major depression in bipolar disorder. METHOD: 740 patients (478 bipolar I, 262 bipolar II) with major depressive episodes (DSM-IV) were randomly assigned to quetiapine 300 mg/d (n = 245), quetiapine 600 mg/d (n = 247), paroxetine 20 mg/d (n = 122), or placebo (n = 126) for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The study was conducted from May 2005 to May 2007. RESULTS: Mean MADRS score change from baseline at 8 weeks was -16.19 for quetiapine 300 mg, -16.31 for quetiapine 600 mg, -13.76 for paroxetine, and -12.60 for placebo (P < .001 for both quetiapine doses, P = .313 for paroxetine, vs placebo). Quetiapine-treated (both doses), but not paroxetine-treated, patients showed significantly greater improvements (P < or = .05) in most secondary outcomes measures at week 8 versus the placebo group. Paroxetine significantly improved Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores versus placebo (P < .05) but not MADRS or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) scores. Both quetiapine doses were associated with greater improvements than paroxetine for MADRS and HDRS scores. The most common adverse events were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, and dizziness with quetiapine (both doses) and dry mouth, sedation, headache, insomnia, and nausea with paroxetine. The incidence of treatment-emergent mania/hypomania was lower with quetiapine compared with paroxetine and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d), but not paroxetine, was more effective than placebo for treating acute depressive episodes in bipolar I and II disorder. Quetiapine treatment was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00119652.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine and lithium monotherapy in adults in the acute phase of bipolar depression (EMBOLDEN I).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and lithium monotherapy with that of placebo for a major depressive episode in bipolar disorder. METHOD: 802 patients with DSM-IV-defined bipolar disorder (499 bipolar I, 303 bipolar II) were randomly allocated to quetiapine 300 mg/d (n = 265), quetiapine 600 mg/d (n = 268), lithium 600 to 1800 mg/d (n = 136), or placebo (n = 133) for 8 weeks. Primary endpoint was the change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The study was conducted from August 2005 to May 2007. RESULTS: Mean MADRS total score change from baseline at week 8 was -15.4 for quetiapine 300 mg/d, -16.1 for quetiapine 600 mg/d, -13.6 for lithium, and -11.8 for placebo (P < .001 for both quetiapine doses, P = .123 for lithium, vs placebo). Quetiapine 600 mg/d was significantly more effective than lithium in improving MADRS total score at week 8 (P = .013). Quetiapine-treated (both doses), but not lithium-treated, patients showed significant improvements (P < .05) in MADRS response and remission rates, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar-Severity of Illness and -Change, and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) scores at week 8 versus placebo. Both quetiapine doses were more effective than lithium at week 8 on the HDRS and HARS. The most common adverse events were somnolence, dry mouth, and dizziness with quetiapine (both doses) and nausea with lithium. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d) was more effective than placebo for the treatment of episodes of acute depression in bipolar disorder. Lithium did not significantly differ from placebo on the main measures of efficacy. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00206141.

Quetiapine monotherapy as treatment for anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar depression: a pooled analysis of results from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder experiencing depression in the BipOLar DEpRession (BOLDER I and II) studies. METHOD: A post hoc analysis of anxiety symptoms in 1,051 acutely depressed patients with bipolar I or II disorder (DSM-IV) from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 8-week studies of quetiapine (300 or 600 mg once daily) was conducted. Anxiety symptoms were assessed using Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) total and psychic (items 1-6, 14) and somatic (items 7-13) anxiety subscale scores (mixed-model repeated measure and last-observation-carried-forward analysis of change from baseline at each assessment). The BOLDER I study was conducted between September 2002 and October 2003, and the BOLDER II study was conducted between June 2004 and August 2005. RESULTS: Mean baseline HARS total scores were similar across the treatment groups (300 mg/d: 18.9, 600 mg/d and placebo: both 18.6). There was a significantly greater improvement from baseline in mean HARS total scores at the first evaluation (week 1) in both quetiapine groups compared with placebo (300 mg/d: -4.6, P < .001 and 600 mg/d: -4.1, P = .003 vs placebo: -2.8). These improvements were sustained through week 8 with both quetiapine doses (300 mg/d: -10.1, P < .001 and 600 mg/d: -10.5, P < .001 vs placebo: -6.9). At week 8, there was also significant improvement from baseline in HARS psychic and somatic anxiety subscale scores compared with placebo (P < .001). The baseline severity of anxiety did not impact the improvement in depressive symptoms. Common adverse events included dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis, quetiapine monotherapy was more effective than placebo and generally well tolerated for the treatment of both depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00060489 (BOLDER I) and NCT00083954 (BOLDER II).

Cost-effectiveness of quetiapine plus mood stabilizers compared with mood stabilizers alone in the maintenance therapy of bipolar I disorder: results of a Markov model analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the following: (1) the number of acute mood events prevented by adjunctive quetiapine therapy, and the potential cost savings; (2) the number of acute mood event-associated hospitalizations avoided by using adjunctive quetiapine therapy, and the potential cost savings of this intervention; and (3) the economic value of adjunctive quetiapine therapy in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the transitions of newly stabilized adult patients with bipolar I disorder across 4 possible health states: euthymia, acute mania, acute depression, and discontinued/ no active therapy. Clinical data were obtained from 2 randomized, double-blind, Phase III trials of up to 2 years' duration (D1447C00126 and D1447C00127) that evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine (versus placebo) when coadministered with lithium or valproate in increasing the time to recurrence of acute mood events in patients with bipolar I disorder. The model evaluated clinical and economic outcomes in 8 quarterly cycles (24 months). Outcome measures included the number of acute mood events, number of hospitalizations related to acute mood events, and their costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated as a secondary outcome. The model was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, base year 2007. RESULTS: In the model analysis, adjunctive quetiapine with lithium or valproate was associated with a 54% reduction in the occurrence of acute mood events, a 29% reduction in acute mood event-related hospitalization costs, and a 4% improvement in QALY gains, with 5% lower total direct costs than placebo + lithium/valproate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (in year-2007 pound) were 506 per additional acute mood event avoided, 4261 per additional acute mood event-related hospitalization prevented, and -7453 per additional QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses indicated that these results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Markov model with a 2-year time horizon suggest that adjunctive quetiapine and mood-stabilizer therapy with lithium or valproate, compared with mood-stabilizer therapy alone in the maintenance treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder, were associated with fewer acute mood events, fewer acute mood event-related hospitalizations, and lower total costs, thereby improving patient mental health outcomes and minimizing impact on payer budgets, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

Maintenance treatment for patients with bipolar I disorder: results from a north american study of quetiapine in combination with lithium or divalproex (trial 127).

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of quetiapine plus lithium or divalproex in the prevention of recurrent mood events in patients with stabilized bipolar I disorder. METHOD: A total of 1,953 patients received open-label quetiapine (400-800 mg/day in flexible, divided doses) with either lithium or divalproex (target serum concentrations 0.5-1.2 meq/liter and 50-125 microg/ml, respectively) for up to 36 weeks. After at least 12 weeks of clinical stability, 628 patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with quetiapine or placebo, in combination with lithium or divalproex, for up to 104 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was time to recurrence of any mood event (mania, depression, or a mixed episode). RESULTS: Fewer patients in the quetiapine group experienced a mood event compared with the placebo group (20.3% versus 52.1%). The hazard ratio for time to recurrence of a mood event was 0.32. Hazard ratios were similar for mania and depression events (0.30 and 0.33, respectively). Sedation, weight increase, and hypothyroidism occurred more frequently in the quetiapine group, as did discontinuations due to adverse events. The incidence and incidence density of a single emergent blood glucose value > or =126 mg/dl were higher in the quetiapine group (12.6% versus 5.4%; 18.44 versus 9.56 patients per 100 patient-years). Adverse events were generally consistent with the known tolerability profile of quetiapine. CONCLUSIONS: In patients stabilized on quetiapine plus lithium or divalproex, continued treatment was associated with a significant risk reduction in the time to recurrence of any mood event compared with placebo and lithium or divalproex.

The psychometric validation of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in patients with bipolar disorder.

Bipolar disorder (BD) adversely affects daily activities/functioning. The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) assesses disability in work/school activities, family relationships, and social functioning, and it evaluates the functional impact of psychiatric disorders. BD outpatients from 21 U.S. sites completed a battery of validated instruments (including the SDS) three times over 8-12 weeks. Instrument reliability (internal consistency, test-retest), validity (construct, convergent validity, known groups) and responsiveness were measured. There were missing data for the SDS in 2% of the 225 subjects with BD. One factor explained 82% of the variance. All SDS items had rotated factor loadings on the first factor >0.90, confirming the appropriateness of the SDS total score. Item-scale correlations surpassed 0.40. There was excellent internal consistency reliability for the SDS total score (Cronbach's alpha=0.89). Test-retest reliability was acceptable for the SDS total score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.73). Correlations with other instruments demonstrate convergent and divergent validity. The SDS total and item scores significantly discriminated between (self-rated) overall health status, clinician-rated functional status, and clinician-rated depression, evidencing known group validity. The SDS demonstrated ability to detect change over time. The SDS is a valid, reliable measure of disability and is responsive to change over time when used in subjects with BD.

Quetiapine monotherapy in the treatment of depressive episodes of bipolar I and II disorder: Improvements in quality of life and quality of sleep.

INTRODUCTION: The depressive symptoms of bipolar disorder impact health-related quality of life, quality of sleep and functioning. The BOLDER I and II trials demonstrated that quetiapine significantly improves depressive symptoms in patients with acute bipolar depression. Post-hoc analysis of the BOLDER I and II data permits a detailed investigation of the effects of quetiapine on these other measures in this patient population. METHODS: Secondary analysis was performed on data from BOLDER I and II, which were two 8-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of quetiapine at fixed doses (300 or 600 mg/day) in a total of 1051 patients with acute depressive episodes of bipolar I or II disorder. Measures included the Short-Form Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q SF) in BOLDER I and II, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in BOLDER I, and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in BOLDER II. Analyses of Q-LES-Q SF score changes were based on data from the combined BOLDER I and II populations, and analyses of PSQI and SDS score changes were based on BOLDER I and BOLDER II populations, respectively. RESULTS: Assessments at day 57 by mixed-model repeated measures analysis demonstrated that quetiapine relative to placebo provided significant or numerical improvements in rating scale score on the Q-LES-Q SF (10.89 with 300 mg/day and 12.14 with 600 mg/day vs. 7.79 with placebo; p<0.001 for each quetiapine dose), PSQI (-5.34 and -6.00 vs. -3.35; p<0.001, each dose), and SDS (-7.78 and -8.25 vs. -6.49; p=0.156 and 0.054, respectively). Effect sizes at day 57 with quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/day, respectively, were 0.34 and 0.46 for Q-LES-Q SF, 0.59 and 0.79 for PSQI, and 0.17 and 0.23 for SDS. Improvements were evident at first post-baseline assessment on day 29 and were consistent over the majority of rating scale domains. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated and most adverse events were of mild to moderate intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine monotherapy is effective in improving impairment in important aspects of life that accompany improvements in depressive symptoms in patients with acute bipolar depression.

Reporting outcomes in clinical trials for bipolar disorder: a commentary and suggestions for change.

OBJECTIVE: Newer outcome measures and statistical reporting that better translate efficacy data to evidence-based psychiatric care are needed when evaluating clinical trials for bipolar disorder. Using efficacy studies as illustrations, the authors review and recommend changes in the reporting of traditional clinical outcomes both in the acute and maintenance phases of bipolar disorder. METHODS: Definitions of response, remission, relapse, recovery, and recurrence are reviewed and recommendations for change are made. These suggestions include reporting the numbers needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH), and a ratio of the two, likelihood of help or harm (LHH), as an important element of the effect size (ES). Moreover, models of prediction that conduct sensitivity or specificity analyses and utilize decision trees to help predict positive and negative outcomes of interest (for instance, excessive weight gain, or time to remission) using positive or negative predictive values (PPV or NPV) are reviewed for potential value to clinicians. Finally, functional and cognitive assessments are recommended for maintenance studies of bipolar disorder. RESULTS: The examples provided in this manuscript underscore that reporting the NNT or NNH, or alternative effect sizes, or using PPV or NPV may be of particular value to clinicians. Such reports are likely to help translate efficacy-driven clinical data to information that will more readily guide clinicians on the benefits and risks of specific interventions in bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The authors opine that reporting these newer outcomes, such as NNT or NNH, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), or PPV or NPV will help translate the results of clinical trials into a language that is more readily understood by clinicians. Moreover, assessing and evaluating functional and cognitive outcomes will not only inform clinicians about potential differences among therapeutic options, but likely will make it easier to communicate such differences to persons with bipolar illness or to their families. Finally, we hope such scientific and research efforts will translate to optimism for recovery-based outcomes in persons with bipolar disorder.