Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans. BACKGROUND: Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small-molecule, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double-blind, phase 3, single-attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants' historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan-naïve, respectively. Response rates on co-primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment-by-subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan-naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Time course of efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: Clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: The full utility of an acute treatment requires examination of the entire time course of effect during a migraine attack. Here the time course of effect of ubrogepant is evaluated. METHODS: ACHIEVE-I and -II were double-blind, single-attack, Phase 3 trials. Adults with migraine were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50mg or 100mg, ACHIEVE-I; 25 mg or 50 mg, ACHIEVE-II). Pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain relief were assessed at various timepoints. Samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Data were pooled for this post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 912 placebo, n = 887 ubrogepant 50 mg, pooled analysis population) mean age was 41 years, with a majority female and white. Pain relief separated from placebo by 1 h (43% versus 37% [OR, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.0-1.59]), absence of most bothersome symptom by 1.5 h (28% versus 22% [1.42, 1.14-1.77]), and pain freedom by 2 h (20% vs. 13% [1.72, 1.33-2.22]). Efficacy was sustained from 2-24 h (pain relief: 1.71, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.71, 1.3-2.3) and remained separated at 48 h (pain relief: 1.7, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.31, 1.0-1.7). Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at 1 h, with pharmacologically active concentrations reached within 11 min and remaining above the EC90 for nearly 12 h. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the time course of effect of ubrogepant showed pain relief as the most sensitive and earliest measure of clinical effect, followed by absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain freedom. Efficacy was demonstrated out to 48 h, providing evidence of the long-lasting effect of ubrogepant. This evaluation supports the role of examining the entire time course of effect to understand fully the utility of an acute treatment for migraine.Trial registration: ACHIEVE I (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02828020) and ACHIEVE II (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02867709).

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered atogepant for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults: a double-blind, randomised phase 2b/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an orally administered, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist under investigation for treatment of migraine. We aimed to examine a range of oral doses for safety, tolerability, and efficacy for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 2b/3 trial, adults (aged 18-75 years), with a history (≥1 year) of migraine and 4-14 migraine days per month, were randomly assigned 2:1:2:2:1:1 (by means of a sequence generated by the statistical programming department of the sponsor, and operationalised through an automated interactive web-based response system) to receive placebo or atogepant 10 mg once daily, 30 mg once daily, 60 mg once daily, 30 mg twice daily, or 60 mg twice daily, in matching capsules. Participants, site personnel, and all study sponsor personnel were masked to treatment allocations. The study was done in 78 academic and private practice settings in the USA. The primary outcome was change from baseline in monthly migraine days across 12 weeks of treatment using a modified intention-to-treat approach. The overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons across active treatment doses was controlled at the 0·05 level by means of a graphic approach. The main outcomes to assess safety and tolerability were adverse event recordings. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02848326 and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 6, 2016, and April 23, 2018, of 1772 individuals screened, 834 were randomly assigned and 825 received one dose or more of study medication: 186 received placebo, 93 atogepant 10 mg once daily, 183 atogepant 30 mg once daily, 186 atogepant 60 mg once daily, 86 atogepant 30 mg twice daily, and 91 atogepant 60 mg twice daily. Overall, 714 (87%) of 825 participants were female, 628 (76%) were white, median migraine duration was 17·5 years (IQR 10·0-28·0), and 232 (28%) had previously used preventive treatment. The primary efficacy analysis included 795 patients: 178 received placebo, 92 atogepant 10 mg once daily, 182 atogepant 30 mg once daily, 177 atogepant 60 mg once daily, 79 atogepant 30 mg twice daily, and 87 atogepant 60 mg twice daily. Across the 12-week treatment period, all five atogepant groups showed significant least-squares mean (SE) change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days versus placebo: atogepant 10 mg once daily -4·0 (0·3; p=0·024), 30 mg once daily -3·8 (0·2; p=0·039), 60 mg once daily -3·6 (0·2; p=0·039), 30 mg twice daily -4·2 (0·4; p=0·0034), and 60 mg twice daily -4·1 (0·3; p=0·0031); placebo -2·9 (0·2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across all groups were nausea (range 5% [5/93] for 10 mg once daily to 12% [22/186] for 60 mg once daily vs 5% [9/186] for placebo) and fatigue (1% [1/93] for 10 mg once daily to 10% [9/91] for 60 mg twice daily vs 3% [6/186] for placebo). Treatment-related TEAE frequency ranged from 18% (17/93) for 10 mg once daily to 26% (24/91) for 60 mg twice daily, versus 16% (30/186) for placebo. Seven participants reported a total of eight serious TEAEs (two participants each in the placebo, 30 mg once-daily, and 60 mg once-daily groups, and one participant in the 10 mg once-daily group). TEAEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 33 (5%) of 639 atogepant participants and 5 (3%) of 186 of those randomised to placebo. All serious TEAEs were unrelated to treatment. INTERPRETATION: All doses of oral atogepant were associated with a significant decrease in monthly migraine days over 12 weeks compared with placebo. Atogepant was safe and well tolerated over 12 weeks, supporting its phase 3 development for the preventive treatment of migraine. FUNDING: Allergan (before its acquisition by AbbVie).

OnabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of major depressive disorder: a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adult females.

This 24-week double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter randomized phase 2 trial evaluated efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; BOTOX) vs. placebo for major depressive disorder (MDD) [NCT02116361]. Primary endpoint was the change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); secondary endpoints were Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 6. A total of 255 adult females were treated. OnabotA 30 U approached significance compared to placebo on MADRS (mixed-effect model repeated measures least-squares mean difference: -3.7; P = 0.053) and reached significance [least-squares mean differences: -3.6 to -4.2; P < 0.05 (two-sided)] at weeks 3 and 9. Secondary endpoints were also significant at several time points. At week 6, onabotA 50 U did not separate from placebo in any parameters. OnabotA was generally well-tolerated: the only treatment-emergent adverse events reported in ≥5% in either onabotA group, and more than matching placebo were headache, upper respiratory infection, and eyelid ptosis. OnabotA 30 U, administered in a standardized injection pattern in a single session, had a consistent efficacy signal across multiple depression symptom scales for 12 or more weeks. OnabotA 30 U/placebo MADRS differences of (observed ANCOVA) ≥4.0 points (up to week 15) and ≥2.0 points (weeks 18-24) agree with the 2-point change threshold considered clinically relevant in MDD. OnabotA is a local therapy and is not commonly associated with systemic effects of conventional antidepressants and may represent a novel treatment option for MDD.

Ubrogepant for the Treatment of Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is an oral, small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute migraine treatment. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and side-effect profile of ubrogepant. We assigned adults with migraine, with or without aura, in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive an initial dose of placebo, ubrogepant at a dose of 50 mg, or ubrogepant at a dose of 100 mg for treatment of a single migraine attack, with the option to take a second dose. The coprimary efficacy end points were freedom from pain at 2 hours after the initial dose and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours. Secondary end points included pain relief (at 2 hours), sustained pain relief (from 2 to 24 hours), sustained freedom from pain (from 2 to 24 hours), and absence of symptoms associated with migraine (photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 hours. RESULTS: A total of 1672 participants were enrolled; 559 were assigned to receive placebo, 556 to receive 50 mg of ubrogepant, and 557 to receive 100 mg of ubrogepant. The percentage of participants who had freedom from pain at 2 hours was 11.8% in the placebo group, 19.2% in the 50-mg ubrogepant group (P = 0.002, adjusted for multiplicity, for the comparison with placebo), and 21.2% in the 100-mg ubrogepant group (P<0.001). The percentage of participants who had freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours was 27.8% in the placebo group, 38.6% in the 50-mg ubrogepant group (P = 0.002), and 37.7% in the 100-mg ubrogepant group (P = 0.002). Adverse events within 48 hours after the initial or optional second dose were reported in 12.8% of participants in the placebo group, in 9.4% in the 50-mg ubrogepant group, and in 16.3% in the 100-mg ubrogepant group. The most common adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and dry mouth (reported in 0.4 to 4.1%); these events were more frequent in the 100-mg ubrogepant group (reported in 2.1 to 4.1%). Serious adverse events reported within 30 days in the ubrogepant groups included appendicitis, spontaneous abortion, pericardial effusion, and seizure; none of the events occurred within 48 hours after the dose. CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of participants who received ubrogepant than of those who received placebo had freedom from pain and absence of the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours after the dose. The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and dry mouth. Further trials are needed to determine the durability and safety of ubrogepant for acute migraine treatment and to compare it with other drugs for migraine. (Funded by Allergan; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020.).

Effect of Ubrogepant vs Placebo on Pain and the Most Bothersome Associated Symptom in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: The ACHIEVE II Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Ubrogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist under investigation for acute treatment of migraine. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant compared with placebo for acute treatment of a single migraine attack. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-attack, clinical trial (ACHIEVE II) conducted in the United States (99 primary care and research clinics; August 26, 2016-February 26, 2018). Participants were adults with migraine with or without aura experiencing 2 to 8 migraine attacks per month. Interventions: Ubrogepant 50 mg (n = 562), ubrogepant 25 mg (n = 561), or placebo (n = 563) for a migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary efficacy outcomes were pain freedom and absence of the participant-designated most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (among photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 hours after taking the medication. Results: Among 1686 randomized participants, 1465 received study treatment (safety population; mean age, 41.5 years; 90% female); 1355 of 1465 (92.5%) were evaluable for efficacy. Pain freedom at 2 hours was reported by 101 of 464 participants (21.8%) in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 90 of 435 (20.7%) in the ubrogepant 25-mg group, and 65 of 456 (14.3%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 7.5%; 95% CI, 2.6%-12.5%; P = .01; 25 mg vs placebo, 6.4%; 95% CI, 1.5%-11.5%; P = .03). Absence of the most bothersome associated symptom at 2 hours was reported by 180 of 463 participants (38.9%) in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 148 of 434 (34.1%) in the ubrogepant 25-mg group, and 125 of 456 (27.4%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 11.5%; 95% CI, 5.4%-17.5%; P = .01; 25 mg vs placebo, 6.7%; 95% CI, 0.6%-12.7%; P = .07). The most common adverse events within 48 hours of any dose were nausea (50 mg, 10 of 488 [2.0%]; 25 mg, 12 of 478 [2.5%]; and placebo, 10 of 499 [2.0%]) and dizziness (50 mg, 7 of 488 [1.4%]; 25 mg, 10 of 478 [2.1%]; placebo, 8 of 499 [1.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with migraine, acute treatment with ubrogepant compared with placebo led to significantly greater rates of pain freedom at 2 hours with 50-mg and 25-mg doses, and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours only with the 50-mg dose. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of ubrogepant against other acute treatments for migraine and to evaluate the long-term safety of ubrogepant among unselected patient populations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02867709.

Safety and tolerability of ubrogepant following intermittent, high-frequency dosing: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is a novel, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist in development for the acute treatment of migraine. This trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of ubrogepant, focusing on hepatic safety, when administered intermittently with high-frequency dosing to healthy participants. METHODS: In this phase 1, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, healthy adults (age 18-50 years) were randomized 1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant. Ubrogepant was dosed at 100 mg (2 × 50 mg tablets) on 2 consecutive days followed by 2 consecutive days of placebo, alternating for 8 weeks. Primary outcome measures were safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Of participants randomized (n = 518), 516 were included in the safety population (n = 260 placebo; n = 256 ubrogepant). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 45% of placebo and 44% of ubrogepant participants. The most common was headache (10% placebo; 11% ubrogepant). Overall, seven cases of alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase levels ≥ 3 × the upper limit of normal (five placebo, two ubrogepant) were reported and adjudicated by a panel of independent liver experts blinded to treatment. Four cases were judged unlikely related to treatment. Two cases (one placebo, one ubrogepant) were judged possibly related, and one (ubrogepant) probably related. Alanine aminotransferase increases to ≥ 3 × the upper limit of normal in the two ubrogepant cases (possibly or probably related) were transient and resolved with continued dosing; both cases were asymptomatic, with no concurrent bilirubin elevation. CONCLUSION: Ubrogepant was well tolerated following intermittent, high-frequency dosing in healthy participants, with no clinically relevant signal of hepatotoxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA.

Translating the HAM-D into the MADRS and vice versa with equipercentile linking.

BACKGROUND: The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are scales used frequently to rate the symptoms of depression. There are many situations in which it is important to know what a given total score or a percent reduction from baseline score of one scale means in relation to the other scale. METHOD: We used the equipercentile linking method to identify corresponding scores of simultaneous HAM-D and MADRS ratings in 4388 patients from 31 mirtazapine trials in major depressive disorder. Data were collected at baseline and at weeks 1, 2 and 4. RESULTS: HAM-D scores of 10, 20, 30 and 40 roughly corresponded to MADRS scores of 13, 26, 39 and 52-53, respectively. An absolute HAM-D improvement of 10, 20, 25 points corresponded to a MADRS improvement of 12, 26, and 34. A percentage improvement from baseline of the HAM-D was approximately the same as a percentage improvement on the MADRS. CONCLUSION: These results are important for the comparison of trials that used the HAM-D and MADRS. We present conversion tables for future research.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Asenapine Maintenance Therapy in Adults With an Acute Manic or Mixed Episode Associated With Bipolar I Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined the efficacy and safety of asenapine in preventing recurrence of any mood episode in adults with bipolar I disorder. METHOD: Adults with an acute manic or mixed episode per DSM-IV-TR criteria were enrolled in this randomized, placebo-controlled trial consisting of an initial 12- to 16-week open-label period and a 26-week double-blind randomized withdrawal period. The target asenapine dosage was 10 mg b.i.d. in the open-label period but could be titrated down to 5 mg b.i.d. After completing the open-label period, subjects meeting stabilization/stable-responder criteria were randomized to asenapine or placebo treatment in the double-blind period. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to recurrence of any mood event during the double-blind period. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed, and 95% confidence intervals were determined. Safety was assessed throughout. RESULTS: A total of 549 subjects entered the open-label period, of whom 253 enrolled in the double-blind randomized withdrawal period (127 in the placebo group; 126 in the asenapine group). Time to recurrence of any mood episode was statistically significantly longer for asenapine- than placebo-treated subjects. In post hoc analyses, significant differences in favor of asenapine over placebo were seen in time to recurrence of manic and depressive episodes. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence (10.0%), akathisia (7.7%), and sedation (7.7%) in the open-label period and mania (11.9% of the placebo group compared with 4.0% of the asenapine group) and bipolar I disorder (6.3% compared with 1.6%) in the double-blind period. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with asenapine was more effective than placebo in preventing recurrence of mood events in adults with bipolar I disorder and was generally well-tolerated.

Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Improves Laparoscopic Surgical Conditions: A Randomized, Controlled Study.

INTRODUCTION: Sustained deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) during laparoscopic surgery may facilitate optimal surgical conditions. This exploratory study assessed whether deep NMB improves surgical conditions and, in doing so, allows use of lower insufflation pressures during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We further assessed whether use of low insufflation pressure improves patient pain scores after surgery. METHODS: This randomized, controlled, blinded study (NCT01728584) compared use of deep (1-2 post-tetanic-counts) or moderate (train-of-four ratio 10%) NMB, and lower (8 mmHg) or higher (12 mmHg; 'standard') insufflation pressure in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary endpoint was surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions, rated at end of surgery using an 11-point numerical scale. Post-operative pain scores were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Of 127 randomized patients, 120 had evaluable data for the primary endpoint. Surgeon's score of overall satisfaction with surgical conditions was significantly higher with deep versus moderate NMB indicated by a least-square mean difference of 1.1 points (95% confidence interval 0.1-2.0; P = 0.026). Furthermore, strong evidence of an effect was observed for standard versus low pressure: least-square mean difference of 3.0 points (95% confidence interval 2.1-4.0; P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in average pain scores within 24 h post-surgery for low versus standard pressure [0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.67 to +0.33); P = 0.494]. CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with significantly improved surgical conditions, deep NMB alone was insufficient to promote use of low insufflation pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Furthermore, low insufflation pressure did not result in reduced pain, compared with standard pressure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01728584. FUNDING: Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI using a company database of mirtazapine studies.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the clinical relevance of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores. It is unclear how total scores translate into clinical severity, or how commonly used measures for response (reduction from baseline of ≥50% in the total score) translate into clinical relevance. Moreover, MADRS based definitions of remission vary. METHODS: We therefore compared: a/ the MADRS total score with the Clinical Global Impression - Severity Score (CGI-S) b/ the percentage and absolute change in the MADRS total scores with Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I); c/ the absolute and percentage change in the MADRS total scores with CGI-S absolute change. The method used was equipercentile linking of MADRS and CGI ratings from 22 drug trials in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (n=3288). RESULTS: Our results confirm the validity of the commonly used measures for response in MDD trials: a CGI-I score of 2 ('much improved') corresponded to a percentage MADRS reduction from baseline of 48-57%, and a CGI-I score of 1 ('very much improved') to a reduction of 80-84%. If a state of almost complete absence of symptoms were required for a definition of remission, a MADRS total score would be <8, because such scores corresponded to a CGI-S score of 2 ('borderline mentally ill'). LIMITATIONS: Although our analysis is based on a large number of patients, the original trials were not specifically designed to examine our research question. CONCLUSIONS: The results might contribute to a better understanding and improved interpretation of clinical trial results in MDD.

Effects of vilazodone on sexual functioning in healthy adults: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and active-controlled study.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of vilazodone on sexual functioning in healthy, sexually active adults and assess the impact of medication nonadherence in this type of trial. Participants were randomized to vilazodone (20 or 40 mg/day), paroxetine (20 mg/day), or placebo for 5 weeks of double-blind treatment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to day 35 in Change in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Post-hoc analyses were carried out in modified intent-to-treat (mITT) populations that excluded participants in the active-treatment groups with undetectable plasma drug concentrations at all visits (mITT-I) or at least one visit (mITT-II). In the ITT population (N=199), there were no statistically significant differences between any treatment groups for CSFQ total score change: placebo, -1.0; vilazodone 20 mg/day, -1.4; vilazodone 40 mg/day, -1.9; and paroxetine, -3.5. In mITT-I (N=197) and mITT-II (N=159), CSFQ total score change was not significantly different between vilazodone (either dose) versus placebo; the CSFQ total score decreased significantly (P<0.05) with paroxetine versus both placebo and vilazodone 20 mg/day, but not versus vilazodone 40 mg/day. Vilazodone exerted no significant effect on sexual functioning in healthy adults. Medication nonadherence can alter study results and may be an important consideration in trials with volunteer participants.

Asenapine for the Acute Treatment of Pediatric Manic or Mixed Episode of Bipolar I Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate asenapine versus placebo in 403 patients aged 10 to 17 years with bipolar I disorder currently in manic or mixed episodes. METHOD: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, international trial, patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to placebo, asenapine 2.5, 5, or 10 mg b.i.d. (twice daily). Primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in Young-Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score at day 21. Analyses of patients with/without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and with/without stimulant use were performed. RESULTS: The mean difference in asenapine versus placebo in YMRS was -3.2 (p = .0008), -5.3 (p < .001), and -6.2 (p < .001) for asenapine 2.5, 5, and 10 mg b.i.d., respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events with an incidence ≥5% and at least twice placebo were somnolence, sedation, hypoesthesia oral, paresthesia oral, and increased appetite. The asenapine groups had a higher incidence of ≥7% weight gain (range, 8.0%-12.0%) versus placebo (1.1%; p < .05). The mean change from baseline in fasting insulin was larger for patients treated with asenapine than those with placebo (asenapine 2.5 mg b.i.d.: 73.375 pmol/L; asenapine 5 mg b.i.d.: 114.042 pmol/L; asenapine 10 mg b.i.d.: 59.846 pmol/L; placebo: 3.690 pmol/L). The mean changes from baseline for lipid parameters and glucose were also larger in asenapine groups than in the placebo group. No safety differences were observed with respect to ADHD and stimulant use. CONCLUSION: All asenapine doses versus placebo were superior based on change in YMRS at day 21. Asenapine was generally well tolerated in patients aged 10 to 17 years with bipolar I disorder in manic or mixed states. Increases in weight and fasting insulin were associated with asenapine. Clinical trial registration information-Efficacy and Safety of Asenapine Treatment for Pediatric Bipolar Disorder; http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01244815.

Hamilton depression rating subscales to predict antidepressant treatment outcome in the early course of treatment.

BACKGROUND: Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) subscales provide an economic alternative for the full scale; however, their ability to detect onset of improvement in the early course of treatment (EI) has not yet been researched. The present study investigated in patients with major depression (MD) whether the subscales are a comparable option to predict treatment remission in the early course of treatment. METHODS: Based on data from 210 MD patients of a 6-week randomised, placebo-controlled trial comparing mirtazapine (MIR) and paroxetine (PAR), the discriminative and predictive validity of EI for (stable) remission at treatment end was evaluated for seven subscales and the HAMD17 in the total and in treatment subgroups (MIR vs. PAR). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves (at week 2) and the Clinical Global Impression scales (CGI) (at study endpoint) were used to validate the 20% EI criterion for the subscales. RESULTS: Only the Evans6 and Toronto7 subscale had almost the same predictive value as the HAMD17 (e.g., sensitivities stable remission Evans6/Toronto7: 96/95% vs. 96% HAMD17). The optimal cut-off for EI to predict remission was just below 20% for most subscales and slightly over 20% for stable remission. LIMITATIONS: Study sample representativeness, non-independence of subscales, missing external validation criterion, lack of control group. CONCLUSIONS: The Evans6 and Toronto7 subscales are valuable alternatives in situations, where economic aspects play a larger role. A sum score reduction of ≥20% as definition for EI seems also appropriate for the HAMD subscales, in the total as well as in the antidepressant subgroups.

Addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist to an SSRI did not enhance the antidepressant effects of SSRI monotherapy: results from a randomized clinical trial in patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Aprepitant is a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced and post-operative nausea and vomiting. Early studies demonstrated promising antidepressant activity as monotherapy, although this was unsupported by subsequent phase 3 trials. This phase 2 study evaluated whether aprepitant potentiated the antidepressant effects of paroxetine. METHODS: Outpatients with major depressive disorder were randomized to aprepitant 200 mg + paroxetine 20 mg, paroxetine + placebo, or aprepitant + placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in HAMD-17 total score. Secondary/exploratory endpoints included changes in HAMA, CGI-S, CGI-I, and HAMD Item-1 scores at week 6. RESULTS: A total of 79, 78, and 79 patients received aprepitant + paroxetine, paroxetine + placebo, and aprepitant + placebo, respectively. At week 6, mean changes in HAMD-17 were -11.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -12.7, -9.4), -11.7 (95% CI: -13.3, -10.0), and -9.5 (95% CI: -10.9, -8.1), respectively. Pairwise comparisons of HAMD-17 change with combination therapy versus paroxetine alone demonstrated no significant difference (p = 0.567). Changes in CGI-S, CGI-I, and HAMD Item-1 scores were also comparable, although there was a greater reduction in anxiety (HAMA) with paroxetine alone than aprepitant + paroxetine (p = 0.045). Adverse events were generally more common with the combination than either monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of aprepitant + paroxetine for 6 weeks did not provide greater antidepressant benefit compared with paroxetine + placebo in patients with major depression.

Efficacy and safety of the glycine transporter-1 inhibitor org 25935 for the prevention of relapse in alcohol-dependent patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Org 25935 is a glycine transporter inhibitor that increases extracellular glycine levels and attenuates alcohol-induced dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens. In animal models, Org 25935 has dose-dependent effects on ethanol intake, preference, and relapse-like behavior without tolerance. The current study aimed to translate these animal findings to humans by examining whether Org 25935 prevents relapse in detoxified alcohol-dependent patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Adult patients diagnosed with alcohol dependence were randomly assigned to receive Org 25935 12 mg twice a day or placebo for 84 days. The primary end point was percentage heavy drinking days (defined as ≥ 5 standard drinks per day for men and ≥ 4 for women). Secondary end points included other measures of relapse-related drinking behavior (e.g., drinks per day, time to relapse), as well as measures of global functioning, alcohol-related thoughts and cravings, and motivation. RESULTS: A total of 140 subjects were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. The trial was stopped approximately midway after a futility analysis showing that the likelihood of detecting a signal at study term was <40%. There was no significant difference between Org 25935 and placebo on percentage heavy drinking days or any other measure of relapse-related drinking behavior. Org 25935 showed no safety issues and was fairly well tolerated, with fatigue, dizziness, and transient visual events as the most commonly occurring side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Org 25935 demonstrated no benefit over placebo in preventing alcohol relapse. Study limitations and implications are discussed.

Effect of reversal of neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex versus usual care on bleeding risk in a randomized study of surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies show a prolongation of activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time in healthy volunteers after treatment with sugammadex. The authors investigated the effect of sugammadex on postsurgical bleeding and coagulation variables. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind trial enrolled patients receiving thromboprophylaxis and undergoing hip or knee joint replacement or hip fracture surgery. Patients received sugammadex 4 mg/kg or usual care (neostigmine or spontaneous recovery) for reversal of rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by thromboprophylaxis and renal status, was used to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI) of bleeding events with sugammadex versus usual care. Safety was further evaluated by prespecified endpoints and adverse event reporting. RESULTS: Of 1,198 patients randomized, 1,184 were treated (sugammadex n = 596, usual care n = 588). Bleeding events within 24 h (classified by an independent, blinded Adjudication Committee) were reported in 17 (2.9%) sugammadex and 24 (4.1%) usual care patients (relative risk [95% CI], 0.70 [0.38 to 1.29]). Compared with usual care, increases of 5.5% in activated partial thromboplastin time (P < 0.001) and 3.0% in prothrombin time (P < 0.001) from baseline with sugammadex occurred 10 min after administration and resolved within 60 min. There were no significant differences between sugammadex and usual care for other blood loss measures (transfusion, 24-h drain volume, drop in hemoglobin, and anemia), or risk of venous thromboembolism, and no cases of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Sugammadex produced limited, transient (<1 h) increases in activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time but was not associated with increased risk of bleeding versus usual care.

The selective glycine uptake inhibitor org 25935 as an adjunctive treatment to atypical antipsychotics in predominant persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia: results from the GIANT trial.

Using a selective glycine uptake inhibitor as adjunctive to second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) was hypothesized to ameliorate negative and/or cognitive symptoms in subjects with schizophrenia. Subjects with predominant persistent negative symptoms (previously stabilized ≥3 months on an SGA) were enrolled in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate adjunctive treatment with Org 25935, a selective inhibitor of type 1 glycine transporter, over 12 weeks in a flexible dose design. Org 25935 was tested at 4 to 8 mg twice daily and 12 to 16 mg twice daily versus placebo. Primary efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms composite score. Secondary efficacy end points were Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total and subscale scores, depressive symptoms (Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia), global functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning scale), and cognitive measures using a computerized battery (Central Nervous System Vital Signs). Responder rates were assessed post hoc. A total of 215 subjects were randomized, of which 187 (87%) completed the trial. Both dose groups of Org 25935 did not differ significantly from placebo on Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (total or subscale scores), Global Assessment of Functioning, or the majority of tested cognitive domains. Org 25935 was generally well tolerated within the tested dose range, with no meaningful effects on extrapyramidal symptoms and some reports of reversible visual adverse effects. Org 25935 did not differ significantly from placebo in reducing negative symptoms or improving cognitive functioning when administered as adjunctive treatment to SGA. In our study population, Org 25935 appeared to be well tolerated in the tested dose ranges.

Weight change and metabolic effects of asenapine in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To describe weight changes and metabolic effects of asenapine compared with placebo and olanzapine in adults. METHOD: Post hoc analyses were performed using data from 17 asenapine trials (13 schizophrenia and 4 bipolar mania trials) with placebo (5-10 mg twice daily; n = 1,748; 1-6 weeks) and/or olanzapine (5-20 mg, once daily; n = 3,430; 3-100 weeks). Data were pooled based on treatment into placebo-controlled and olanzapine-controlled trials. For trials with placebo and olanzapine treatment groups, the asenapine population was included in both pools. Changes from baseline for weight, body mass index, and fasting lipid and glucose levels were determined. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities was used to define metabolic adverse events. RESULTS: Mean (standard error [SE]) weight change was greater with asenapine than with placebo (1.2 [0.2] vs 0.14 [0.2] kg; P < .0001) and similar in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Mean changes differed for asenapine versus placebo in triglycerides (1.8 [6.3] vs -12.2 [5.9] mg/dL; P < .01) and fasting glucose (1.9 [1.7] vs -1.6 [1.5] mg/dL; P < .05). In the olanzapine-controlled trials, weight change was significantly lower with asenapine than with olanzapine (0.9 [0.1] vs 3.1 [0.2] kg; P < .0001). Changes associated with asenapine were lower than those with olanzapine in fasting glucose (2.0 vs 3.3 mg/dL), total cholesterol (-0.4 [1.1] vs 6.2 [1.2] mg/dL; P < .0001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.3 [1.1] vs 3.1 [1.2] mg/dL; P < .01), and triglycerides (-0.9 [5.4] vs 24.3 [5.8] mg/dL; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Asenapine was associated with greater weight gain and glucose changes than placebo and not associated with a meaningful change in triglycerides or cholesterol levels. Asenapine was not significantly different from olanzapine in change in glucose levels and lower than olanzapine with respect to triglycerides, weight gain, and increased cholesterol.

Long-term effects of asenapine or olanzapine in patients with persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: A Phase 2 efficacy study suggested that asenapine (ASE) was superior to risperidone in decreasing negative symptoms in schizophrenia at 6 weeks, prompting design of two negative symptom studies. Two 26-week core studies with 26-week extensions compared asenapine (ASE: 5-10mg twice-daily] and olanzapine (OLA: 5-20mg once-daily) as monotherapies in reducing persistent negative symptoms (PNS). While neither study met the primary endpoint of superiority of ASE over OLA, ASE was statistically superior to OLA in one extension study. This prompted a pooled analysis of the treatment effects of both drugs. METHODS: Data were pooled from two 26-week core studies and extensions. Efficacy endpoints: change in Negative Symptom Assessment scale-16 (NSA-16) total score at Week 26 (prespecified primary endpoint) and Week 52. Additional measures: change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)-total, Marder factors, negative subscale scores, Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness score (CGI-S) assessments, NSA-16 factor domains, NSA global score, and individual items. RESULTS: Pooled data from the extension studies (n=502) showed no differences between ASE and OLA at Week 26. At Week 52, ASE showed superiority over OLA in NSA-16 total score, NSA global, PANSS Marder negative and PANSS negative subscales, some NSA-16 items, and four of five factor domains. In addition, pooled data for patients who entered the core trials (n=949) were analyzed over 52weeks (whether or not patients entered the extension). No significant differences between groups were observed in change in NSA-16 total score at 26-weeks. At Week 52, ASE was significantly superior over OLA in this measure, NSA global score and PANSS Marder negative factor. There were more early dropouts due to AEs, including worsening of the disease, in the ASE group. CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis, ASE and OLA did not differ significantly over 26 weeks, but indicated a signal of superiority for ASE with continued treatment up to 52 weeks.