Clinical Evaluation After Discontinuation of Galcanezumab in Japanese Patients with Episodic and Chronic Migraine: Analysis of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial and Open-label Extension Study.

INTRODUCTION: This analysis of two Japanese clinical trials evaluated efficacy and safety after galcanezumab (GMB) discontinuation in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: Data were from a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo [PBO]-controlled primary trial (patients with EM) and a 12-month open-label extension trial (patients with EM/CM). Patients received 6 months' (primary) or 12/18 months' (extension) treatment with GMB 120 mg (GMB120) plus 240-mg loading dose or 240 mg (GMB240) with 4 months' post-treatment follow-up. Efficacy was assessed as number of monthly migraine headache days during post-treatment. Safety was assessed via post-treatment-emergent adverse events (PTEAEs). RESULTS: The analysis population included 186 patients from the primary trial (PBO N = 93; GMB120 N = 45; GMB240 N = 48), 220 patients with EM from the extension trial (PBO/GMB120 N = 57; PBO/GMB240 N = 55; GMB120/GMB120 N = 55; GMB240/GMB240 N = 53), and 55 patients with CM (GMB120 N = 28; GMB240 N = 27). In patients with EM receiving 6 months' GMB120, mean standard deviation (SD) monthly migraine headache days increased from 5.69 (4.64) at treatment end to 6.24 (4.37) at end of follow-up but did not return to pre-treatment levels (8.80 [2.96]). In the extension trial, mean monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM receiving GMB120 were 4.13 (3.85) after 12 months and 4.45 (3.78) at end of follow-up, and 3.59 (3.48) after 18 months and 3.91 (3.57) at end of follow-up. Monthly migraine headache days in patients with CM (12 months' GMB120) were 10.71 (4.61) at treatment end and 11.17 (5.64) at end of follow-up (pre-treatment 20.15 [4.65]). Similar results were seen for patients receiving GMB240. The most observed PTEAE after GMB discontinuation was nasopharyngitis. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab exhibited post-treatment efficacy for up to 4 months in Japanese patients with EM and with CM. No unexpected safety signals were observed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02959177 and NCT02959190.

Long-term treatment with lasmiditan in patients with migraine: post hoc analysis of treatment patterns and outcomes from the open-label extension of the CENTURION randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this analysis was to gain new insights into the patient characteristics and other factors associated with lasmiditan usage and clinical outcomes under conditions resembling the real-world setting. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data from the 12-month, open-label extension (OLE) of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled CENTURION trial, which examined the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan as acute treatment across four migraine attacks. Patients completing the main study who treated ≥ 3 attacks could continue in the OLE. The initial lasmiditan dose was 100 mg, with dose adjustments to 50 mg or 200 mg allowed at the investigator's discretion. Patient and clinical characteristics were summarized by dosing pattern and completion status. Safety was assessed based on adverse event (AE) frequency by number of doses. RESULTS: In total, 445 patients treated ≥ 1 migraine attacks with lasmiditan during the OLE, 321 of whom (72.1%) completed the study. Forty-seven percent of patients remained on the 100-mg initial dose during the OLE whereas 20.2% used both 100 mg and 50 mg, 30.6% used both 100 mg and 200 mg, and 6 (1.3%) used multiple dose levels. All dosing patterns were associated with clinical and patient-reported improvement; however, the 100-mg group had the highest proportion of patients reporting improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change - Migraine Headache Condition (56.5% vs 33.4%-52.2%). In comparison, all three groups that made dose adjustments had higher rates of completion compared to the 100-mg group (72.1%-83.3% vs 68.9%). The frequency of AEs decreased with continued use of lasmiditan. Concomitant triptans and lasmiditan use did not increase AE frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Based on high persistence and patient satisfaction rates, the 100-mg dose appears optimal for most patients. For those who adjusted dose levels, dose adjustments appeared beneficial to improve efficacy or tolerability, retaining patients on treatment. Collectively, the data suggest that patients who experienced efficacy continued to use lasmiditan regardless of the occurrence or frequency of AEs, and continued use appeared associated with fewer AEs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2018-001661-17; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03670810; registration date: September 12, 2018.

Galcanezumab Efficacy Through the Dosing Interval in Japanese Patients with Episodic Migraine: Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase 2 Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of galcanezumab as a preventive treatment in Japanese patients with episodic migraine was demonstrated in a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (conducted December 2016-January 2019). This post hoc analysis assessed the consistency of galcanezumab efficacy through the monthly dosing interval. METHODS: Patients with 4-14 migraine headache days/month were randomized (2:1:1, stratified by baseline migraine frequency) to subcutaneous placebo (n = 230), 120-mg galcanezumab (with 240-mg loading dose; n = 115) or 240-mg galcanezumab (n = 114) once monthly for 6 months. Outcomes included change from baseline in weekly migraine headache days, proportion of patients with migraine headache on each day, and proportion of patients with worsening migraine headache days during each month ([average of weeks 3-4] - [average of weeks 1-2] > 0). RESULTS: In the 120-mg (approved dose) galcanezumab group, mean change from baseline in weekly migraine headache days was consistent and significantly greater (p < 0.05) than placebo for weeks 1-4; efficacy was consistent when averaged across months 1-6 and in most individual months. Averaged across months 1-6, the proportion of patients with migraine headache was significantly lower with galcanezumab than placebo on every day in both dose groups and was not significantly different between days 2 and 28 with 120-mg galcanezumab (p = 0.161). Within each month, the proportion of patients with migraine headache was generally consistent from days 2-28. The proportion of patients with worsening during the dosing interval did not significantly exceed 50% in any group during any month. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis supports the consistency of efficacy of galcanezumab across 6 months of treatment and suggests that wearing-off within the dosing interval does not occur on a population level in Japanese patients with episodic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02959177.

Lasmiditan in Japanese Patients with Common Migraine Comorbidities or Concomitant Medications: A Post Hoc Safety and Efficacy Analysis from the MONONOFU Study.

Background: Migraine is often comorbid with other disorders. People with migraine may be prescribed one or more concomitant medications. This post hoc analysis assessed the safety and efficacy of lasmiditan in Japanese people with migraine comorbidities or using concomitant medications. Patients and Methods: The MONONOFU study was a Phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of lasmiditan for acute migraine treatment in Japanese adults. Patients reported comorbidities (pre-existing or coexisting conditions) during screening. Concomitant medications (any drugs taken ±48 hours of the study drug) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded in a paper diary. Study drug efficacy (pain freedom 2 hours after administration of study drug) was reported in an eDiary. Logistic regression models were used for subgroup analyses of safety (incidence of TEAEs) and efficacy (pain freedom at 2 hours post dose) of lasmiditan in relation to presence/absence of comorbidities, and safety in relation to concomitant medications. Results: Common comorbidities (occurring in ≥10% of any lasmiditan dose group) were seasonal allergies, allergic rhinitis, tension-type headache, cervicobrachial syndrome, dysmenorrhea, nasopharyngitis, musculoskeletal stiffness, chronic gastritis, constipation, and insomnia. There was no significant interaction of treatment with comorbidity for safety or efficacy. There was also no significant interaction between treatment and concomitant medication groups of special interest (acetaminophen/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, triptans, antiemetics, central nervous system depressant medications, serotonergic medications, antiepileptics, antihypertensive medications, Chinese herbal medicines, and contraceptives) for incidence of TEAEs. Conclusion: In Japanese people with migraine, the safety of lasmiditan appeared to be independent of common comorbidities and concomitant medications; efficacy appeared to be independent of comorbid conditions. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03962738 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Safety profile of lasmiditan in patients with migraine in an Asian population.

BACKGROUND: MONONOFU, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study of Japanese patients with migraine, was pivotal for lasmiditan approval in Japan. However, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more common than in global studies. A detailed safety profile would assist patient management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Safety assessments in MONONOFU included specific terms reported, frequency, severity, time to onset, duration, TEAE management, common TEAE risk factors, and TEAE-efficacy associations. RESULTS: Of 846 participants, 691 were assessed for safety. The proportion of participants reporting ≥1 TEAE was 23.4% with placebo and 70.9% with lasmiditan; 87.3% of TEAEs with lasmiditan were mild. The most frequent TEAEs with lasmiditan, dizziness (39.4%) and somnolence (19.3%), started ≤1 hour postdose (median durations: 2.5 and 3.3 hours, respectively). Higher lasmiditan dose, but not patient factors including body size, was identified as a clinically meaningful predictor of dizziness and somnolence. There were no adverse consequences of neurological TEAEs, which did not appear to adversely affect lasmiditan efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: In the MONONOFU study, TEAEs appeared typically mild, transient, and self-limiting. Lasmiditan may represent a useful and well-tolerated acute treatment option for smaller (body mass index <30 kg/m2) patients and Asian patients with migraine.

Rapid Onset and Sustained Efficacy of Lasmiditan Among Japanese Patients with Migraine: Prespecified Analyses of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid onset and sustained efficacy are important for acute migraine treatment. Global phase 3 trials have demonstrated the early onset and sustained efficacy of the 5-HT1F receptor agonist lasmiditan. In this prespecified analysis of the MONONOFU study, we assessed the onset and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan in Japanese patients with migraine. METHODS: MONONOFU was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study conducted in Japan (May 2019-June 2020). Eligible adults with migraine (N = 846; modified intent-to-treat population, N = 682) were randomized 7:3:7:6 to placebo, lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, or 200 mg, taken orally within 4 h of moderate-to-severe migraine onset. Patients recorded headache severity and symptoms predose and 0.5-48 h postdose. Sustained and modified sustained pain freedom were defined as patients who were headache pain-free 2 h postdose and had no pain (sustained pain freedom) or had mild or no pain (modified sustained pain freedom) at 24 or 48 h without rescue/recurrence medications. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed by logistic regression. Patients also recorded the actual time of pain-free and of meaningful pain relief (Kaplan-Meier analysis). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, significantly more lasmiditan-treated (100 or 200 mg) patients were headache pain-free, had pain relief, were free of their most bothersome symptom, or had total migraine freedom (no headache or migraine-associated symptoms) within 30-60 min. Median time to pain-free was 9.26, 6.88, 2.75, and 2.30 h in placebo, 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg lasmiditan groups, respectively. Significantly greater proportions of patients treated with 100 (19.7-29.5%) or 200 mg (21.1-35.7%) lasmiditan had sustained or modified sustained pain freedom at 24 or 48 h compared with placebo (10.4-15.8%). CONCLUSION: This prespecified analysis of data from MONONOFU has confirmed that the efficacy of lasmiditan is rapid in onset and sustained in patients with moderate-to-severe migraine in Japan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03962738).

Efficacy of Lasmiditan Across Patient and Migraine Characteristics in Japanese Patients with Migraine: A Secondary Analysis of the MONONOFU Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This MONONOFU trial subgroup analysis evaluates the efficacy of lasmiditan across patient and migraine characteristics in Japanese patients with migraine. METHODS: MONONOFU trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:7:6:7 ratio to receive lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo for a single migraine attack within 4 h of pain onset. Efficacy of lasmiditan vs placebo was evaluated at 2 h post dose for proportion of patients with headache pain freedom. Efficacy was assessed across patient characteristics (age, sex, body weight, cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), and comorbidity of tension-type headache), migraine disease characteristics (history of migraine with aura, migraine prevention therapy, triptan response, and triptan use or nonuse), and migraine attack characteristics (headache severity, aggressive headache, attack during perimenstrual period, time to dosing, time of dosing, experienced treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of dizziness, and experienced TEAE of somnolence). Logistic regression was used; all subgroup analyses were not analyzed with multiplicity-adjusted statistical tests. RESULTS: Treatment-by-subgroup interactions (by each arm) were not significant (p ≥ 0.05) for pain freedom at 2 h post dose across all patient subgroups and lasmiditan doses, except for CVRF (100 mg and 200 mg), migraine with aura (50 mg), triptan response (50 mg), and time to dosing (200 mg). Treatment-by-subgroup interactions (by overall) were not significant (p ≥ 0.05) for pain freedom at 2 h post dose across all patient subgroups, except for CVRFs. Higher proportions of patients were pain free at 2 h post dose when treated with lasmiditan (50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg) versus placebo, irrespective of most patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics. CONCLUSION: Although few interactions were observed, lasmiditan could be a promising acute treatment option in a wide range of Japanese patients with migraine, as efficacy is not generally influenced by patient and migraine characteristics.

Lasmiditan for single migraine attack in Japanese patients with cardiovascular risk factors: subgroup analysis of a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Some migraine treatments are contraindicated for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors (CVRFs). We report safety and efficacy of lasmiditan, a new oral acute migraine treatment with no cardiovascular contraindication, in Japanese patients with CVRFs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: MONONOFU was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of Japanese patients with migraine (met International Headache Society criteria, Migraine Disability Assessment score ≥11, disabling migraine for ≥1 year). Eligible patients were randomized (7:3:7:6) to placebo or lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg. This prespecified analysis described CVDs, CVRFs, and cardiovascular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy (proportion pain-free, experienced pain relief, most bothersome symptom-free, or disability-free 2 hours post-dose) was evaluated within CVRF subgroups (≤1, ≥2). RESULTS: Of 846 randomized patients, 691 were analyzed (CVRF≤1: 375; CVRF≥2: 316). The proportion of lasmiditan-treated patients with ≥1 TEAE was not related to CVRF numbers. Eighteen (3.8%) lasmiditan-treated and three (1.4%) placebo-treated patients reported likely cardiovascular TEAEs. Lasmiditan was more effective than placebo at relieving pain, symptoms, and disability in both CVRF subgroups. There was no consistent relationship between CVRF subgroups and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was well tolerated and effective in Japanese patients with migraine and CVRFs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962738.

Phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study of lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine in Japanese patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in Japanese adults with migraine. BACKGROUND: Global clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study in Japan (NCT03962738), which enrolled adults with migraine with or without aura. Participants were randomized 7:3:7:6 to placebo, lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, or 200 mg to be self-administered orally within 4 h of onset of a single moderate-to-severe migraine attack. Participants recorded their response to treatment prior to dosing and for 48 h postdose. The primary endpoint was headache pain freedom at 2 h postdose. RESULTS: Participants (N = 846) were randomized and treated (N = 691, safety; N = 682, modified intent-to-treat). At 2 h postdose, a significantly higher proportion of participants were headache pain-free in the lasmiditan 200 mg (40.8%, 73/179; odds ratio 3.46 [95% confidence interval 2.17 to 5.54]; p < 0.001; primary objective) and 100 mg groups (32.4%, 67/207; odds ratio 2.41 [1.51 to 3.83]; p < 0.001) compared with the placebo group (16.6%, 35/211), whereas the lasmiditan 50 mg group had a numerically higher proportion of participants headache pain-free (23.5%, 20/85; odds ratio 1.55 [0.83 to 2.87]; p = 0.167) compared with placebo. A statistically significant linear dose-response relationship for pain freedom was achieved at 2 h by a Cochran-Armitage trend test (p < 0.001). Lasmiditan treatment was also associated with headache pain relief, most bothersome symptom freedom, and improvement on disability and Patient Global Impression of Change outcomes. The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were mild and of short duration, the most common of which were dizziness (39.4%; 188/477), somnolence (19.3%; 92/477), and malaise (10.5%; 50/477) in all lasmiditan groups, with no serious adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was well tolerated and effective for the acute treatment of Japanese patients with migraine, consistent with global phase 3 studies.

Effectiveness and safety of oral olanzapine treatment transitioned from rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine for agitation associated with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral olanzapine treatment transitioned from rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine (RAIM) in patients with acute agitation associated with schizophrenia in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: The postmarketing surveillance study with a 3-day observational period after the last RAIM administration was conducted (original study). Following this, an extended study was added for patients who received oral olanzapine after RAIM administration during the original study period, in order to additionally observe them for 7 days after initial RAIM administration. Effectiveness and safety from initial RAIM administration were evaluated using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component score and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), respectively. RESULTS: The effectiveness and safety analysis set included a total of 521 and 522 patients, respectively. A majority of patients received 10 mg of RAIM (475/522 patients, 91.0%). The mean ± SD total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component score was 23.6±6.2 (n=318) at baseline (before initial RAIM administration), 17.4±6.8 (n=280) at 2 hours after initial administration, 16.2±6.8 (n=246) 2 days after final administration, 14.9±6.2 (n=248) 3 days after final administration, 13.8±5.9 (n=242) 4 days after final administration, 13.2±5.8 (n=221) 7 days after initial administration, and 13.4±6.2 (n=351) at final observation (with the last observation carried forward approach), showing that reduction in agitation seen with RAIM was sustained with oral dose of olanzapine. The most common TEAEs were dyslalia and somnolence (each event occurred in four patients), and abnormal hepatic function and constipation (occurred in three patients). One serious adverse event of sudden cardiac death occurred after transitioned to oral olanzapine with many other antipsychotic drugs. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia, RAIM could be generally transitioned to oral olanzapine without exacerbating adverse events or losing treatment effect.

Safety and effectiveness of rapid-acting intra-muscular olanzapine for agitation associated with schizophrenia - Japan postmarketing surveillance study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of rapid-acting intramuscular (IM) olanzapine in the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia in real-world clinical settings in Japan. METHODS: In this multicenter, postmarketing surveillance (PMS) study, patients with acute agitation associated with schizophrenia were treated with IM olanzapine daily in a daily clinical setting. The observational period ranged from 1 to 7 days, including the day of initial administration. Safety was assessed by reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score was used to evaluate effectiveness at baseline and at 2 hours (after each administration), 2 days, and 3 days (end of the observational period) from the last administration of the IM olanzapine injection. RESULTS: The safety analysis set included 999 patients, and the initial dose of 10 mg was administered to 955 patients. TEAEs were reported in 28 patients (36 events), the most common of which were dyslalia (5 patients), akathisia and somno lence (4 patients each), hepatic function abnormal (3 patients), and constipation and dehydration (2 patients each). One serious adverse event of akathisia occurred during the observation period. The PANSS-EC score (mean ± standard deviation) was 23.3±6.4 (n=625) at baseline, 16.9±7.0 (n=522) at 2 hours after initial injection, and 14.9±6.5 (n=650) at the last observation carried forward. CONCLUSION: The results of this Japanese PMS study demonstrated that IM olanzapine is safe and has a favorable effectiveness profile in the treatment of schizophrenia patients with acute agitation.

Perceptions and impact of bipolar disorder in Japan: results of an Internet survey.

Bipolar disorder is a recurrent and episodic illness. This survey study assessed experiences and identified clinical insights of individuals with bipolar disorder. An Internet-based monitor system database was screened for patients with bipolar disorder in Japan (February and March 2013). Of 1,050 patients, 457 completed surveys, and results were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Approximately one-fourth of respondents were diagnosed with bipolar disorder on their first visit to medical institutions, although the most common initial diagnosis was depression/depressive state (65%). Mean time lag between first-time visit to a medical institution and receipt of correct diagnosis of bipolar disorder was 4 years; one-third of patients experienced more than 5 years of lag time. Three perceived reasons for lapsed time before correct diagnosis were "(patients) Did not consider manic symptoms as illness, and did not tell the doctor about them," "I (patient) did not know of bipolar disorder," and "Lack of communication between my doctor and myself (patient)." Among participants who believed that they were initially incorrectly diagnosed and improperly treated, most experienced socioeconomic problems, such as having long-term inability to work or to study (65%). Sources of encouragement for participants included "To have someone to consult with" (41%) followed by having "People around me treat me the same as before" (40%). Individuals with bipolar disorder reported a time lag of many years before accurate diagnosis, and substantial burden imposed by the illness. Encouragement should be provided for individuals to live positively with bipolar disorder.

Effectiveness of Simple Individual Psychoeducation for Bipolar II Disorder.

Several studies have proven the effectiveness of psychoeducation in bipolar II disorder patients; however, simpler psychoeducation is needed in daily medical practice. Therefore, we devised a simple individual psychoeducation program, which involved 20-minute sessions spent reading a textbook aloud in the waiting time before examination. Here, we report a successful case of simple individual psychoeducation with a patient with bipolar II disorder, a 64-year-old woman who had misconceptions surrounding her mood due to 24 years of treatment for depression. Her perception of mood state, particularly mixed state, was dramatically changed, and her quality of life was improved after the simple individual psychoeducation. This case suggests that the simple individual psychoeducation could be effective for bipolar II disorder by improving understanding of the disease and by meeting different individual needs.

Antipsychotic monotherapy among outpatients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine or risperidone in Japan: a health care database analysis.

PURPOSE: Antipsychotic monotherapy is often recommended over antipsychotic polypharmacy because of fewer adverse events, reduced treatment complexity, and lower medication cost. This study compared the rate and the duration of antipsychotic monotherapy following initiation of olanzapine or risperidone in the treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia in Japan. METHODS: Outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia in the Japan Medical Data Center database were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, diagnosis codes. Patients were between 20 and 65 years old, initiated on olanzapine or risperidone therapy between August 2003 and July 2008, and continuously enrolled during the 6 months prior to and the 12 months following the initiation date. Antipsychotic polypharmacy was defined as concurrent use of two or more antipsychotics. The probability of monotherapy during the 12-month follow-up period was assessed using a propensity score-adjusted generalized estimating equation model. Duration of monotherapy was contrasted using a propensity score-adjusted bootstrapping model. RESULTS: After applying all inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final analytic sample consisted of 332 olanzapine- and 496 risperidone-treated outpatients. At treatment initiation, 61.5% of the olanzapine-treated patients and 45.6% of the risperidone-treated patients received antipsychotic monotherapy (P < 0.001). After correcting for background differences, monotherapy was more common among olanzapine-treated patients (P = 0.001). In addition, olanzapine was used as monotherapy for a longer duration (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Consistent with prior global research, this retrospective naturalistic study of schizophrenia outpatients in Japan found that olanzapine is more likely to be used as monotherapy and to be used as monotherapy for a longer duration than risperidone.

Predictors of antipsychotic monotherapy with olanzapine during a 1-year naturalistic study of schizophrenia patients in Japan.

PURPOSE: Although expert guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia recommend antipsychotic monotherapy, the use of antipsychotic polypharmacy is common. This study identified characteristics that differentiate patients with schizophrenia who are treated with olanzapine monotherapy versus polypharmacy in usual care in Japan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a large (N = 1850) prospective, observational study, Japanese patients with schizophrenia who initiated treatment with olanzapine were followed for 1 year. Consistent with past research, antipsychotic polypharmacy was defined as the concurrent use of olanzapine and another antipsychotic for at least 60 days. Switching was defined as discontinuing a prior antipsychotic therapy rather than augmenting the medication regimen. Predictors of antipsychotic monotherapy were based on information available at the time of olanzapine initiation. Baseline characteristics were compared using t-tests and χ(2) tests. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of monotherapy. RESULTS: Patients treated with olanzapine monotherapy (43.2%) differed from those treated with antipsychotic polypharmacy (56.8%) on demographics, treatment history, baseline symptom levels, functional levels, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Stepwise logistic regression identified multiple variables that significantly predicted monotherapy: older age, shorter duration of schizophrenia, outpatient status, comorbid medical conditions, lower body mass index, no prior anticholinergic use, no prior mood stabilizer use, and switching from a previous antipsychotic (typical or atypical). CONCLUSION: Consistent with prior research in Japan, antipsychotic polypharmacy appears to be common in the treatment of schizophrenia. Patients treated with monotherapy could be differentiated from those treated with antipsychotic polypharmacy based on a specific set of demographic and baseline clinical characteristics.

Predictors of continuation with olanzapine during the 1-year naturalistic treatment of patients with schizophrenia in Japan.

PURPOSE: Treatment continuation is considered an important measure of antipsychotic effectiveness in schizophrenia, reflecting the medication's efficacy, safety, and tolerability from both patients' and clinicians' perspectives. This study identified characteristics of patients with schizophrenia who continue olanzapine therapy for a 1-year period in Japan. METHODS: In a large (N = 1850), prospective, observational study, Japanese patients with schizophrenia who initiated treatment with olanzapine were followed for 1 year. Baseline characteristics were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent baseline predictors of treatment continuation. RESULTS: Most patients (68.2%) continued with olanzapine therapy for the full 1-year study period, with an average duration of 265.5 ± 119.4 days. At baseline, patients who continued were significantly more likely to be male, older, and inpatients; have longer illness duration, higher negative and cognitive symptoms, better health-related quality of life, and prior anticholinergic use. Continuers were significantly less likely to engage in social activities, live independently, work for pay, or have prior antidepressant use. Continuers showed significantly greater early (3-month) improvement in global symptom severity. Logistic regression found that continuation was significantly predicted by longer illness duration, lower positive symptoms, higher negative symptoms, and better health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In this large naturalistic study in Japan, most patients with schizophrenia stayed on olanzapine therapy for the full 1-year study period. Treatment completion with olanzapine was independently predicted by longer illness duration, lower positive symptoms, higher negative symptoms, and better health-related quality of life.