Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Co-Morbidities in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Literature Review.

Objective: Individuals with autism spectrum disorder often present somatic and/or psychiatric co-morbid disorders. The DSM-5 allows for consideration of additional diagnoses besides ASD and may have impacted the prevalence of co-morbidities as well as being limited in capturing the true differences in prevalence observed between males and females. We describe the prevalence of ASD and frequently observed co-morbidities in children and adolescents (<18 years) in the United States and five European countries. Methods: Two systematic literature reviews were conducted in PubMed and Embase for the period 2014-2019 and focusing on the prevalence of ASD and nine co-morbidities of interest based on their frequency and/or severity: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), anxiety, depressive disorders, epilepsy, intellectual disability (ID), sleep disorders, sight/hearing impairment/loss, and gastro-intestinal syndromes (GI). Results: Thirteen studies on prevalence of ASD and 33 on prevalence of co-morbidities were included. Prevalence of ASD was 1.70 and 1.85% in U.S children aged 4 and 8 years respectively, while prevalence in Europe ranged between 0.38 and 1.55%. Additionally, current evidence is supportive of a global increase in ASD prevalence over the past years. Substantial heterogeneity in prevalence of co-morbidities was observed: ADHD (0.00-86.00%), anxiety (0.00-82.20%), depressive disorders (0.00-74.80%), epilepsy (2.80-77.50%), ID (0.00-91.70%), sleep disorders (2.08-72.50%), sight/hearing impairment/loss (0.00-14.90%/0.00-4.90%), and GI syndromes (0.00-67.80%). Studies were heterogeneous in terms of design and method to estimate prevalence. Gender appears to represent a risk factor for co-morbid ADHD (higher in males) and epilepsy/seizure (higher in females) while age is also associated with ADHD and anxiety (increasing until adolescence). Conclusion: Our results provide a descriptive review of the prevalence of ASD and its co-morbidities in children and adolescents. These insights can be valuable for clinicians and parents/guardians of autistic children. Prevalence of ASD has increased over time while co-morbidities bring additional heterogeneity to the clinical presentation, which further advocates for personalized approaches to treatment and support. Having a clear understanding of the prevalence of ASD and its co-morbidities is important to raise awareness among stakeholders.Appeared originally in Front Psychiatry 2021; 12:744709.

Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Co-morbidities in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Literature Review.

Objective: Individuals with autism spectrum disorder often present somatic and/or psychiatric co-morbid disorders. The DSM-5 allows for consideration of additional diagnoses besides ASD and may have impacted the prevalence of co-morbidities as well as being limited in capturing the true differences in prevalence observed between males and females. We describe the prevalence of ASD and frequently observed co-morbidities in children and adolescents (<18 years) in the United States and five European countries. Methods: Two systematic literature reviews were conducted in PubMed and Embase for the period 2014-2019 and focusing on the prevalence of ASD and nine co-morbidities of interest based on their frequency and/or severity: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), anxiety, depressive disorders, epilepsy, intellectual disability (ID), sleep disorders, sight/hearing impairment/loss, and gastro-intestinal syndromes (GI). Results: Thirteen studies on prevalence of ASD and 33 on prevalence of co-morbidities were included. Prevalence of ASD was 1.70 and 1.85% in US children aged 4 and 8 years respectively, while prevalence in Europe ranged between 0.38 and 1.55%. Additionally, current evidence is supportive of a global increase in ASD prevalence over the past years. Substantial heterogeneity in prevalence of co-morbidities was observed: ADHD (0.00-86.00%), anxiety (0.00-82.20%), depressive disorders (0.00-74.80%), epilepsy (2.80-77.50%), ID (0.00-91.70%), sleep disorders (2.08-72.50%), sight/hearing impairment/loss (0.00-14.90%/0.00-4.90%), and GI syndromes (0.00-67.80%). Studies were heterogeneous in terms of design and method to estimate prevalence. Gender appears to represent a risk factor for co-morbid ADHD (higher in males) and epilepsy/seizure (higher in females) while age is also associated with ADHD and anxiety (increasing until adolescence). Conclusion: Our results provide a descriptive review of the prevalence of ASD and its co-morbidities in children and adolescents. These insights can be valuable for clinicians and parents/guardians of autistic children. Prevalence of ASD has increased over time while co-morbidities bring additional heterogeneity to the clinical presentation, which further advocates for personalized approaches to treatment and support. Having a clear understanding of the prevalence of ASD and its co-morbidities is important to raise awareness among stakeholders.

Efficacy of Agomelatine 25-50 mg for the Treatment of Anxious Symptoms and Functional Impairment in Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Three Placebo-Controlled Studies.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of agomelatine on anxious symptoms and functional impairment in a pooled dataset from randomized placebo-controlled trials for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Data from three randomized, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of agomelatine 25-50 mg were pooled. The short-term (12 weeks) efficacy of agomelatine was assessed in regards to (1) anxious symptoms using the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), and (2) functional impairment using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Meta-analysis using a random effect model was used to assess differences between groups. Remission and response rates for the HAM-A and SDS were calculated, and analyses were repeated in participants with more severe anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: In total, 669 patients (340 on agomelatine; 329 on placebo) were included in the analyses. Compared to placebo, the agomelatine group had a significant reduction in HAM-A total score at week 12 (between group difference: 6.30 ± 2.51, p = 0.012). Significant effects were also found for symptom response on the HAM-A (67.1% of patients on agomelatine vs. 32.5% on placebo) and symptom remission (38.8% of patients on agomelatine vs. 17.3% on placebo). Compared to placebo, there was a significant difference in favour of the agomelatine group at week 12 on the SDS total score (5.11 ± 1.81, p = 0.005). Significant effects were also found for functional response on the SDS (79.1% of patients on agomelatine vs. 43.2% of placebo) and functional remission (55.2% of patients on agomelatine vs. 25.4% on placebo). All findings for anxious symptoms and functional impairment were confirmed in the subset of more severely anxious patients. Agomelatine was well tolerated by patients. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that agomelatine reduces anxiety symptoms and improves the global functioning of GAD patients.

The safety of agomelatine in standard medical practice in depressed patients: A 26-week international multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The present observational cohort study documented the safety of agomelatine in current medical practice in out-patients suffering from major depressive disorder. METHOD: The 6-month evolution of agomelatine-treated patients was assessed with a focus on safety (emergent adverse events, liver acceptability), severity of depression using the Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) score, and functioning measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). RESULTS: A total of 8453 depressed patients from 761 centres in 6 countries were analysed (female: 67.7%; mean age: 49.1 ± 14.8 years). Adverse events reported were in accordance with the known safety profile of agomelatine. Cutaneous events were reported in 1.7% of the patients and increased hepatic transaminases values were reported in 0.9 % of the patients. The incidence of events related to suicide/self-injury was 1.0%. Two completed suicides, not related to the study drug, were reported. CGI-S total scores and SDS sub-scores improved and numbers of days lost or underproductive decreased over the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: In standard medical practice, agomelatine treatment was associated with a low incidence of side effects. No unexpected events were reported. A decrease in the severity of the depressive episode and improved functioning were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NAME: Observational cohort study to evaluate the safety of agomelatine in standard medical practice in depressed patients. A prospective, observational (non-interventional), international, multicentre cohort study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN53570733.

Agomelatine in Standard Medical Practice in Depressed Patients: Results of a 1-Year Multicentre Observational Study In France.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Non-interventional studies are a valuable source of evidence that is complementary to traditional randomised, blinded and controlled clinical trials, for evaluating antidepressants in a real-world setting. The aim of the present study was to document the use of agomelatine in current medical practice and evaluate its effectiveness and safety in outpatients prescribed agomelatine to treat their current depressive episode. METHODS: This 12-month observational French study included patients initiating agomelatine treatment. The intensity and severity of depression were assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) total score and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale. Patients' quality of life and functioning were measured using the Quality of Life in Depression Scale and the Sheehan Disability Scale, respectively. The safety measures included emergent adverse events and biological samplings, with a focus on liver acceptability. RESULTS: A total of 1484 patients (70% of women; 49.6 ± 15.4 years of age) were enrolled in the study. Most patients (62.3%) were treated with agomelatine for at least 6 months and 28.8% were treated for at least 1 year. Mean HAM-D17 total score and mean CGI-S scores decreased by 13.6 ± 8.1 and 2.1 ± 1.5 points, respectively, from baseline to last visit on agomelatine. Rates of responders (i.e. with a decrease in HAM-D17 total score by at least 50%) and remitters (HAM-D total score < 7) at the last visit were 90.7% and 56.0%, respectively. The mean HAM-D total score decreased after agomelatine withdrawal (- 4.1 ± 6.7) until the last visit. The quality of life and daily functioning of patients improved, while the numbers of days lost and underproductive days decreased over the follow-up period. Safety findings were in accordance with the known information regarding agomelatine. CONCLUSION: In the current medical practice, this study confirms the effectiveness and good tolerability of agomelatine administered for a treatment period in agreement with guideline recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN53570733 on 27 August 2010.

Randomized Efficacy and Safety Trial with Oral S 44819 after Recent ischemic cerebral Event (RESTORE BRAIN study): a placebo controlled phase II study.

BACKGROUND: The GABAA-α5 receptor antagonist S44819 is a promising candidate to enhance functional recovery after acute ischemic stroke (IS). S44819 is currently evaluated in this indication; RESTORE brain study started in Dec 2016 and was completed in March 2019. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a 3-month international, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled phase II multicentre study. Patients in 14 countries who suffered an IS leading to a moderate or severe deficit defined by NIHSS score ranging from 7 to 20 and are aged between 18 to 85 years are included between 3 and 8 days after the stroke onset. Approximately 580 patients are to be included. The primary objective of the study is to demonstrate the superiority of at least one of the two doses of S44819 (150 or 300 mg bid) compared to placebo on top of usual care on functional recovery measured with the modified Rankin scale at 3 months. Comparisons between two doses of S44819 and placebo are assessed with ordinal logistic regression evaluating the odds of shifting from one category to the next in the direction of a better outcome at day 90. Secondary objectives include the evaluation of S44819 effects on neurological examination using the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale total score, activities of daily living using the Barthel Index total score, and cognitive performance using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale total score and Trail Making Test times. Safety and tolerability of the two doses of S44819 will also be analyzed. DISCUSSION: The RESTORE BRAIN study might represent the first proof of concept study of an innovative therapeutic approach that is primarily based on enhancing functional recovery after IS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Randomized Efficacy and Safety Trial with Oral S 44819 after Recent ischemic cerebral Event, an international, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled phase II study. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02877615; Eudract 2016-001005-16. Registered 24 August 2016.

12-week double-blind randomized multicenter study of efficacy and safety of agomelatine (25-50 mg/day) versus escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) in out-patients with severe generalized anxiety disorder.

Treatment of severely symptomatic patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) raises particular concerns for clinicians. This 12-week double-blind study evaluated the efficacy of agomelatine (25-50 mg/day) in the treatment of patients with severe GAD, using escitalopram (10-20 mg) as active comparator. The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline of the total score on the Hamilton Anxiety scale (HAM-A) at week 12. Secondary outcome measures included rate of response to treatment (at least 50% score reduction from baseline) in the HAM-A psychic and somatic anxiety sub-scores, Clinical Global Impression severity and change scores, the Toronto Hospital Alertness Test, the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale, and the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire Scores. Sixty one clinical centers (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Slovakia) participated from April 2013 to February 2015. Patient characteristics and demographic data were comparable between treatment groups. Both treatments were associated with a clinically significant decrease in HAM-A total score at week 12; the non-inferiority of agomelatine versus escitalopram was not demonstrated (E(SE) = -0.91(0.69), 95%CI = [-2.26, 0.44], p = 0.195). At week 12, the response rate was 60.9% in the agomelatine group, and 64.8% in the escitalopram group. In both treatment arms, HAM-A psychic and somatic anxiety scores decreased, alertness and sleep parameters improved, and ability to experience pleasure increased. In these secondary outcome measures, there were no significant differences between the treatment groups. Agomelatine was well-tolerated, with a lower incidence of adverse events than escitalopram. Agomelatine and escitalopram are efficacious in treating GAD patients with severe symptoms.

Effect of agomelatine 25-50 mg on functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to investigate the effect of agomelatine on functioning compared with placebo in patients suffering from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). METHODS: Data from two randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled short-term agomelatine trials conducted by the manufacturer, one in adult and one in older patients, that evaluated the effect on social functioning, were pooled. The short term effect of agomelatine on social functioning was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), according to SDS total and sub-item scores, as well as on functional response and remission rates. The Hamilton Depression rating scale was used to quantify severity of depression symptoms. A meta-analytic method using a random effect model was used to assess differences in treatment. RESULTS: In total, 633 patients (422 on agomelatine; 211 on placebo) were included in the analyses. At endpoint, there was a significant difference in favor of agomelatine vs placebo of 3.47 (0.62) (95% confidence interval: [2.26; 4.67]; P < 0.001) on the SDS total score. Rates of symptomatic response and remission according to HAM-D17 total score were significantly higher in patients taking agomelatine (54.3% and 18.3% respectively) than in those taking placebo (29.4% and 9.5% respectively) with respective differences of 24.9%, p < 0.001 and 9.3%, p < 0.001. The functional response rates were 52.9% on agomelatine and 34.5% on placebo, with a significant placebo-agomelatine difference in favor of agomelatine of 18.30 ±â€¯4.39% (95% CI: [9.69; 26.91], p < 0.001). The functional remission rates were 22.3% with agomelatine and 10.2% with placebo, with a significant difference in favor of agomelatine of 11.7 ±â€¯3.11% (95% CI: [5.61; 17.79], p < 0.001). Combined symptomatic and functional response rates were 42.1% on agomelatine and 23.2% on placebo (p < 0.001), and the combined symptomatic and functional remission rates were 13.9% on agomelatine and 6.8% on placebo (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: This study confirms the efficacy of agomelatine in improving social functioning in MDD patients.

Relative short-term efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine versus vortioxetine in adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder.

Agomelatine and vortioxetine are antidepressants with different mechanisms of action compared to other pharmaceutical treatment options. The objective of this present analysis is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine (25-50 mg) compared to vortioxetine (10-15-20 mg) in adult patients with major depressive disorder. We performed an adjusted indirect comparison using placebo as a common control. The main outcomes were efficacy (response to treatment by Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale/Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and acceptability (withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse events). 10 agomelatine and 11 vortioxetine studies were included in the analysis. For efficacy, no difference was shown between agomelatine and vortioxetine (E[95% CI] = -0.03 [-0.12;0.05]). For acceptability, no significant difference was found between both antidepressants. These findings substantiate current understanding that most antidepressants are of similar average efficacy and tolerability. Such equivalent therapeutic benefit of both compounds, measured by a quantitative clinical research approach, has to be discussed with the knowledge of a qualitative estimation in routine practice.

Antidepressant effect in older depressed patients: the lessons of two agomelatine trials.

The present paper reports in parallel the findings of the two phase III trials that evaluated the efficacy of agomelatine in older depressed patients. It describes how the particular methodological innovations (particularly in relation to patient selection, design and accuracy of diagnosis of depression) introduced in study 2 have improved the quality of recruitment of patients and the assay sensitivity. Study 1 lacked assay sensitivity, and among the many differences with study 2, the inclusion of unexpected mildly ill patients could have inflated the placebo response. The increased demands on investigators in study 2 appear to have reduced the placebo effect and showed a robust benefit of agomelatine. The two agomelatine studies offer the opportunity to discuss hypotheses that have been raised to explain the low level of response of older patients to available antidepressants.

Efficacy and safety of agomelatine (10 or 25 mg/day) in non-depressed out-patients with generalized anxiety disorder: A 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Agomelatine is efficacious in reducing symptoms and preventing relapse in placebo-controlled trials in generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). Nevertheless, fixed dose studies of agomelatine in GAD have not been undertaken. To determine the minimally effective optimal dose of agomelatine in GAD, the efficacy of two doses of agomelatine (10 and 25mg/day) was investigated in a 12-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind, international study in patients with a primary diagnosis of GAD. The primary outcome measure was the Hamilton Anxiety scale (HAM-A). The study was undertaken in 35 clinical centers in Finland, Russia, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine from August 2013 to January 2015. 131 out-patients were included in the agomelatine 10mg group, 139 in the agomelatine 25mg group, and 142 in the placebo group. Both doses of agomelatine were associated with significant decreases in the HAM-A at week 12 (difference versus placebo of 7.16±1.00 at 10mg and 11.08±0.98 at 25mg, p<0.0001). Significant effects on all secondary measures were found for both doses at week 12; including psychic and somatic HAM-A subscales, response rate, remission on the HAM-A, and functional impairment. Findings were confirmed in subsets of more severely ill patients on all endpoints. The low placebo response rate observed in this study was consistent with an increase in the quality of data collected. Agomelatine was well-tolerated by patients, with minimal distinctions from placebo. There was a dose effect of agomelatine, with a greater placebo-agomelatine difference in the agomelatine 25mg group, compared to the agomelatine 10mg group.The present data support early work indicating the efficacy and tolerability of agomelatine in the treatment of GAD.

Sustained efficacy of agomelatine 10 mg, 25 mg, and 25-50 mg on depressive symptoms and functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder. A placebo-controlled study over 6 months.

This randomized placebo-controlled "dose relation study" was conducted in patients who met criteria for major depressive disorder, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of agomelatine during 24 weeks at 3 doses (i) low fixed dosage (10 mg/day, n=100 patients entered the extension period), (ii) fixed dosage (25 mg/day, n=111) and (iii) a flexible dosage with up-titration in case of insufficient improvement at week 2 (25-50 mg/day, n=115) versus placebo (n=85). Mood was evaluated using the Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAM-D17) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale. The functional status was examined with the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). At last post-baseline assessment, there were significant placebo-agomelatine differences on mean HAM-D17 total scores in favour of each agomelatine dose regimen (4.51±1.06 points, p<0.0001 at 10 mg; 7.74±1.05 points, p<0.0001 at 25 mg and 7.72±1.05 points, p<0.0001 at 25-50 mg). The response rate according to HAM-D17 was significantly higher in patients taking agomelatine than those taking placebo (difference of 21.8% at 10mg p<0.001; 36.4% and 35.4% respectively at 25 mg and 25-50 mg, p<0.0001). The remitter rate was significantly higher in patients taking agomelatine than those taking placebo (difference of 16.7% at 10 mg p=0.003; 33.8% and 35.4% respectively at 25 mg and 25-50 mg, p<0.0001). The effects of agomelatine were corroborated by CGI scores. Agomelatine improved symptom-related functional impairment on all domains of the SDS scale for the fixed dose 25 mg, and the one step titration 25-50 mg dose regimen. Similar findings were obtained for all measures in the subgroup of severely depressed patients. All dose regimens of agomelatine were well tolerated and no unexpected adverse event was reported. Long term agomelatine treatment improves both mood symptoms and social and occupational functioning of moderately to severely depressed patients. There is a dose effect between 10 mg and higher dose regimens of agomelatine. The threshold dose of 25 mg for initiating treatment can be maintained over 6 months in depressed patients.

A pooled analysis of six month comparative efficacy and tolerability in four randomized clinical trials: agomelatine versus escitalopram, fluoxetine, and sertraline.

OBJECTIVE: A pooled-analysis on the long-term outcome in four head-to-head studies: agomelatine versus fluoxetine, sertraline, and (twice) escitalopram. Method A meta-analytic approach was used. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores, response and remission rates, Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scores, response and remission rates, and completion rates/discontinuation rates due to adverse events were analyzed. RESULTS: At the last post-baseline assessment on the 24-week treatment period, the final HAM-D-17 score was significantly lower in patients treated with agomelatine than in patients treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), as well in the total group of patients with severe depression (P = 0.014 and 0.040, respectively). HAM-D response rates at the end of 24 weeks were significantly higher in patients treated with agomelatine than in patients treated with SSRIs, as well in the total group of patients with severe depression (P = 0.031 and 0.048, respectively). HAM-D remission rates at the end of 24 weeks were numerically but not significantly higher in patients treated with agomelatine than in patients treated with SSRIs. Final CGI-I scores were significantly lower for agomelatine. CGI-I response as well as remission rates were numerically higher in patients treated with agomelatine, without statistical significance. The percentage of patients with at least one emergent adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation was 9.4% in patients treated with SSRIs and 6.6% in patients treated with agomelatine (P = 0.065). CONCLUSION: The present pooled analysis shows that, from a clinical point of view, agomelatine is at least as efficacious as the investigated SSRIs with a trend to fewer discontinuations due to adverse events.

Efficacy of the novel antidepressant agomelatine for anxiety symptoms in major depression.

OBJECTIVES: Anxiety in major depression is associated with increased morbidity. The antidepressant, agomelatine, which acts as an agonist at melatonin MT(1) and MT(2) receptors and as an antagonist at serotonin 5-HT(2C) receptors, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in both major depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Here, we investigated the efficacy of agomelatine in anxious depression. METHODS: Data from three placebo-controlled short-term trials of agomelatine and three comparative studies of agomelatine versus fluoxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine were pooled. Effects of agomelatine on anxiety symptoms were assessed with the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale in four studies (one vs placebo and three vs active comparator) and with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) anxiety subscore in all six studies. Anxiolytic and antidepressant efficacies of agomelatine were assessed in patients with more severe anxiety symptoms at baseline (score ≥5 on HAMD anxiety subscore). RESULTS: Agomelatine had a significantly greater effect on anxiety symptoms than both placebo and a number of comparator antidepressants. In more anxious depressed patients, agomelatine had a significantly greater effect on anxiety and depressive symptoms than both placebo and comparator antidepressants. CONCLUSION: Once-a-day oral agomelatine is a new, efficacious alternative option for the treatment of anxiety in patients with major depression.

Efficacy of the novel antidepressant agomelatine on the circadian rest-activity cycle and depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind comparison with sertraline.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the efficacy of agomelatine, the first antidepressant to be an agonist at MT(1)/MT(2) receptors and an antagonist at 5-HT(2C) receptors, versus sertraline with regard to the amplitude of the circadian rest-activity cycle and depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: Outpatients with DSM-IV-TR-defined MDD received either agomelatine 25 to 50 mg (n = 154) or sertraline 50 to 100 mg (n = 159) during a 6-week, randomized, double-blind treatment period. The study was conducted from 2005 to 2006. The main outcome measure was the relative amplitude of the individual rest-activity cycles, expressed as change from baseline to week 6 and collected from continuous records using wrist actigraphy and sleep logs. Secondary outcome measures were sleep efficiency and sleep latency, both derived from actigraphy, and efficacy on depression symptoms (17-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score and Clinical Global Impressions scale scores) and anxiety symptoms (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score and subscores). RESULTS: A significant difference in favor of agomelatine compared to sertraline on the relative amplitude of the circadian rest-activity cycle was observed at the end of the first week (P = .01). In parallel, a significant improvement of sleep latency (P <.001) and sleep efficiency (P <.001) from week 1 to week 6 was observed with agomelatine as compared to sertraline. Over the 6-week treatment period, depressive symptoms improved significantly more with agomelatine than with sertraline (P <.05), as did anxiety symptoms (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The favorable effect of agomelatine on the relative amplitude of the circadian rest-activity/sleep-wake cycle in depressed patients at week 1 reflects early improvement in sleep and daytime functioning. Higher efficacy results were observed with agomelatine as compared to sertraline on both depressive and anxiety symptoms over the 6-week treatment period, together with a good tolerability profile. These findings indicate that agomelatine offers promising benefits for MDD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.isrctn.org: ISRCTN49376288.

Follow-up of GK rats during prediabetes highlights increased insulin action and fat deposition despite low insulin secretion.

The adult Goto-Kakizaki (GK) rat is characterized by impaired glucose-induced insulin secretion in vivo and in vitro, decreased beta-cell mass, decreased insulin sensitivity in the liver, and moderate insulin resistance in muscles and adipose tissue. GK rats do not exhibit basal hyperglycemia during the first 3 wk after birth and therefore could be considered prediabetic during this period. Our aim was to identify the initial pathophysiological changes occurring during the prediabetes period in this model of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). To address this, we investigated beta-cell function, insulin sensitivity, and body composition in normoglycemic prediabetic GK rats. Our results revealed that the in vivo secretory response of GK beta-cells to glucose is markedly reduced and the whole body insulin sensitivity is increased in the prediabetic GK rats in vivo. Moreover, the body composition of suckling GK rats is altered compared with age-matched Wistar rats, with an increase of the number of adipocytes before weaning despite a decreased body weight and lean mass in the GK rats. None of these changes appeared to be due to the postnatal nutritional environment of GK pups as demonstrated by cross-fostering GK pups with nondiabetic Wistar dams. In conclusion, in the GK model of T2DM, beta-cell dysfunction associated with increased insulin sensitivity and the alteration of body composition are proximal events that might contribute to the establishment of overt diabetes in adult GK rats.