Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis.

AIM: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US. METHODS: Adult patients (18-64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014 US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars. RESULTS: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism + short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism + disability. CONCLUSION: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.

A Real-World Analysis of Migraine: A Cross-Sectional Study of Disease Burden and Treatment Patterns.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess the sociodemographics, disease burden, and treatment patterns of patients with episodic and chronic migraine in the United States. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disabling neurological disease that places an enormous burden on patients. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi Migraine United States Disease Specific Programme (index period: January to March 2014). Physicians (N = 150) completed a patient report form on 10 consulting patients with migraine. Episodic migraineurs had ≤14 headache days per month (HDM) and those with chronic migraine had ≥15. Headache-related disability was assessed with the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Disability was also compared across subgroups based on the number of HDM (≤3, 4-7, 8-14, and ≥15). RESULTS: A total of 1487 patient report forms were completed. Over 70% of the patients were female, 90.8% (n = 1350) were episodic migraineurs, and 9.2% (n = 137) were chronic migraineurs. Acute treatment was prescribed for >90% of the patients, and >50% had a current prescription for preventive treatment. Despite taking acute and/or preventive treatment, 29.2% of episodic migraineurs (including some patients with ≤3 headache days/month) and 73.2% of chronic migraineurs had moderate-to-severe headache-related disability (MIDAS total score ≥11). Preventive treatment was discontinued/switched at least once by 26.4% of episodic migraineurs and by 53.3% of chronic migraineurs. Of those patients (n = 382) who gave collective reasons for discontinuation/switching preventive treatment, over 70% selected lack of efficacy and tolerability/safety. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis provides additional support for the unmet medical need for efficacious therapies that reduce migraine frequency and severity, headache-related disability, and have better tolerability for patients with migraine. In addition, further research is needed to better understand the burden of illness among patients with lower migraine frequency, and to implement treatment strategies to prevent progression of the disease.

Long-Term, Open-Label, Safety Study of Edivoxetine Monotherapy in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term safety and tolerability of edivoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, which was being developed as monotherapy in pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: This was an open-label study of edivoxetine once daily dosing (0.1-0.3 mg/kg) as treatment for ADHD in children (6-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) to assess safety for up to 5 years. The safety assessments included the incidence of adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiograms, laboratory tests, percentile changes in weight, height, and body mass index, and Tanner staging. Efficacy of treatment with edivoxetine was also assessed using the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-Version IV-Parent Reported: Investigator Scored (ADHDRS-IV) and Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity (CGI-ADHD-S). RESULTS: A total of 267 children and adolescents were enrolled and 20 completed the 5-year study. Most of the participants were male (70.4%) and white (67.4%), and the mean age was 11.6 years. Two hundred three participants (76.9%; N = 264) experienced at least one adverse event. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in >10% of participants were headache, vomiting, nausea, and upper respiratory tract infection. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by seven participants (2.7%) during study treatment periods, and one participant was diagnosed with suspect epilepsy during the follow-up period after discontinuation of edivoxetine. CONCLUSION: Long-term open-label treatment with edivoxetine as monotherapy in children and adolescents with ADHD revealed a safety profile that was consistent with its pharmacological effects on norepinephrine transmission and with that reported in short-term studies of edivoxetine. The study was terminated early due to slow enrollment and the very low number of 5-year completers. Lilly is not proceeding with further development of edivoxetine, as announced in 2013.

Safety and tolerability of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants for patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to assess the safety profile of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants. METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted on data obtained from the integrated safety database of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to SSRIs. Safety and tolerability assessments included discontinuation rates, spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory tests, blood pressure (BP) and pulse, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). RESULTS: The analysis included 1260 patients treated with adjunctive edivoxetine and 806 treated with adjunctive placebo. Study completion rates were 85.2% and 84.5% (p=0.994), respectively. Discontinuations due to adverse events were 4.9% and 3.5% (p=0.07), respectively. Significantly more patients in the adjunctive edivoxetine group compared with adjunctive placebo group reported at least one TEAE (56.8 vs 43.7%, p<0.001). The most common TEAEs (occurred ≥5% frequency) were hyperhidrosis, nausea, and tachycardia. Mean changes in sitting BP and pulse at the last visit were increased significantly in patients treated with adjunctive edivoxetine compared with adjunctive placebo (SBP: 2.7 vs 0.5 mm Hg, p<0.001; DBP: 4.1 vs 0.8 mm Hg, p<0.001; pulse: 8.8 vs -1.3 bpm, p<0.001). There were no clinically significant changes in laboratory measures. CONCLUSIONS: The tolerability and safety profile of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to SSRI antidepressants was consistent with its norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor mechanism of action, and was comparable with edivoxetine monotherapy treatment in patients with major depressive disorder.

CYP2D6 predicted metabolizer status and safety in adult patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder participating in a large placebo-controlled atomoxetine maintenance of response clinical trial.

Atomoxetine, which is indicated for treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is predominantly metabolized by genetically polymorphic cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6). Based on identified CYP2D6 genotypes, individuals can be categorized into 4 phenotypic metabolizer groups as ultrarapid, extensive, intermediate, and poor. Previous studies have focused on observed differences between poor and extensive metabolizers, but it is not well understood whether the safety profile of intermediate metabolizers differs from that of ultrarapid and extensive metabolizers. This study compared safety and tolerability among the different CYP2D6 metabolizer groups in the 12-week open-label phase of an atomoxetine study in adult patients with ADHD. Genotyping identified 1039 patients as extensive/ultrarapid metabolizers, 780 patients as intermediate metabolizers, and 117 patients as poor metabolizers. Common (≥5% frequency) treatment-emergent adverse events did not significantly differ between extensive/ultrarapid and intermediate metabolizers (odds ratios were <2.0 or >0.5). Poor metabolizers had higher frequencies of dry mouth, erectile dysfunction, hyperhidrosis, insomnia, and urinary retention compared with the other metabolizer groups. There were no significant differences between extensive/ultrarapid and intermediate metabolizers in changes from baseline in vital signs. These results suggest that data from CYP2D6 intermediate and extensive/ultrarapid metabolizers can be combined when considering safety analyses related to atomoxetine.

Edivoxetine compared to placebo as adjunctive therapy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the prevention of symptom re-emergence in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: When patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) are partial responders to antidepressant therapy, adjunctive treatment with an agent that has a different mode of action may provide additional benefit. We investigated the efficacy of edivoxetine, a highly selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI), as adjunctive treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the prevention of re-emergence of depressive symptoms in patients with MDD (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01299272). METHODS: Adult outpatients with MDD who were partial responders to SSRI treatment (N = 1249) entered an open-label 8 week flexibly dosed (12-18 mg/day) adjunctive edivoxetine period. Patients who achieved remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≤10 at week 8) entered a 12 week open-label fixed-dose (12 mg or 18 mg/day) stabilization period, and those still in remission at each of weeks 18, 19, and 20 were randomized to continue treatment at the same dose of edivoxetine or switch to placebo for a 24 week double-blind withdrawal period. All patients remained on SSRI therapy throughout the study. The primary outcome was time to re-emergence of depressive symptoms during double-blind withdrawal. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-four patients were randomized to continue adjunctive edivoxetine and 292 were switched to adjunctive placebo. Comparing adjunctive edivoxetine with adjunctive placebo, differences were not significant for time to re-emergence of symptoms (Kaplan-Meier log-rank p = 0.485), rates of symptom re-emergence (9.9% vs 8.2%, p = 0.565) or rates of sustained remission (75.4% vs 76.7%, p = 0.771). Treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with the noradrenergic mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: Edivoxetine failed to demonstrate superiority vs placebo as adjunctive treatment in the prevention of symptom re-emergence during maintenance treatment in SSRI partial responders with MDD. While no selective NRIs are approved for adjunctive treatment to SSRIs in MDD, the use of NRIs in this population is nonetheless accepted practice, but our data do not support the efficacy of this approach.

Observational study of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding events in patients taking duloxetine and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a case-control analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the concomitant use of duloxetine with prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or aspirin was associated with an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding compared with taking these analgesics alone. METHODS: Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Databases were examined for hospital admissions of adult patients indexed from January 1, 2007-December 31, 2011. Cases were patients with UGI hemorrhage or peptic ulcer disease. Controls were randomly selected from the remaining admissions to match 10:1 with cases based on age, sex, and admission date. Prescription medication exposure groups of interest were: 1) no exposure to duloxetine, NSAIDs or aspirin; 2) duloxetine only; 3) NSAIDs or aspirin only; 4) duloxetine plus NSAIDs or aspirin. Logistic regression and relative excess risk due to interaction was utilized to estimate any increased risk of UGI bleeding for patients prescribed these medications across these groups. RESULTS: There were 33,571 cases and 335,710 controls identified. Comparing exposure group 2 and group 4, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94, 1.12), and the adjusted relative excess risk due to interaction was 0.352 (95% CI: -0.18, 0.72) for risk of UGI bleeding, neither of which support an increased risk or an interaction between duloxetine and prescription NSAID or aspirin for these events. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of an increased risk for UGI bleeding when duloxetine was taken with prescription NSAIDs or aspirin. In addition, there was no evidence of an interaction between duloxetine and prescription NSAIDs or aspirin for an increased risk of these events.

Onset of response with duloxetine treatment in patients with osteoarthritis knee pain and chronic low back pain: a post hoc analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Knowing when to change pain-medication strategy is not well researched and remains a gap in treating chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine how long to treat osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain and chronic low back pain (CLBP) with duloxetine before considering a change in medication strategy. METHODS: We employed a post hoc analysis of changes in pain-severity data from placebo-controlled studies of duloxetine treatment in nondepressed patients with OA knee pain and CLBP. The studies were selected for inclusion in the analyses based on similarity of study design. Pain severity was recorded daily in patient diaries using an ordinal 11-point numerical rating scale (0 = no pain to 10 = most severe pain). The weekly means of the daily 24-hour average pain severity ratings from these diaries were pooled within disease states. Moderate response was defined as at least a 30% reduction from baseline in pain severity, and minimal improvement was defined as <10% reduction from baseline. The probability of achieving at least moderate pain reduction during 3 months treatment with duloxetine was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods in patients with no or minimal improvement after 2, 4, and 6 weeks of treatment, as well as in all patients who had not yet achieved a moderate response (<30% reduction in pain severity). RESULTS: There were 239 OA patients and 541 CLBP patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with duloxetine 60/120 mg/d. OA and CLBP patients with minimal improvement at 2 weeks of treatment had <40% probability of achieving a moderate response, and at 4 weeks of treatment their chances were reduced to <30% in OA patients and <25% in CLBP patients. In patients showing <30% improvement at week 2 of treatment, OA patients had a 62% probability of achieving a moderate response, and CLBP patients had a 52% probability for a moderate response, and at 4 weeks of treatment, their chances were reduced to <50% in OA patients and <40% in CLBP patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking duloxetine for OA or CLBP who have <10% reduction in pain after 4 weeks of treatment have limited possibility for eventually achieving even moderate pain reduction by the end of 12 weeks. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00433290, NCT00408421, NCT00424593, NCT00408876, NCT00767806.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of older adult patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This was a flexible-dosed study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine 30-120 mg once daily in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in older adult patients. METHODS: Patients with GAD, who were at least 65 years of age, were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either duloxetine (N = 151) or placebo (N = 140). The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score, and the primary endpoint was at week 10. Global functioning was assessed by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Safety and tolerability was assessed by the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, laboratory analyses, and vital signs. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: The overall baseline mean HAM-A total score was 24, and SDS global score was 14. Completion rates were 75% for placebo and 76% for duloxetine. At week 10, duloxetine was superior to placebo on mean changes from baseline in HAM-A total scores (-15.9 vs. -11.7, p < 0.001) and in SDS global scores (-8.6 vs. -5.4, p < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in ≥5% of duloxetine-treated patients and twice the rate than with placebo including constipation (9% vs. 4%, p = 0.06), dry mouth (7% vs. 1%, p = 0.02), and somnolence (6% vs. 2%, p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: Duloxetine treatment was efficacious in the improvement of anxiety and functioning in older adult patients with GAD, and the safety profile was consistent with previous GAD studies.

The risk of bleeding with duloxetine treatment in patients who use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): analysis of placebo-controlled trials and post-marketing adverse event reports.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety of duloxetine with regards to bleeding-related events in patients who concomitantly did, versus did not, use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin. METHODS: Safety data from all placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine conducted between December 1993 and December 2010, and post-marketing reports from duloxetine-treated patients in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), were searched for bleeding-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The percentage of patients with bleeding-related TEAEs was summarized and compared between treatment groups in all the placebo-controlled studies. Differences between NSAID user and non-user subgroups from clinical trial data were analyzed by a logistic regression model that included therapy, NSAID use, and therapy-by-NSAID subgroup interaction. In addition, to determine if higher duloxetine doses are associated with an increased incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs, and whether the use of concomitant NSAIDs might influence the dose effect if one exists, placebo-controlled clinical trials with duloxetine fixed doses of 60 mg, 120 mg, and placebo were analyzed. Also, the incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs reported for duloxetine alone was compared with the incidence in patients treated with duloxetine and concomitant NSAIDs. Finally, the number of bleeding-related cases reported for duloxetine in the FAERS database was compared with the numbers reported for all other drugs. RESULTS: Across duloxetine clinical trials, there was a significantly greater incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs in duloxetine- versus placebo-treated patients overall and also in those patients who did not take concomitant NSAIDS, but no significant difference was seen among those patients who did take concomitant NSAIDS. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs in the subset of patients treated with duloxetine 120 mg once daily versus those treated with 60 mg once daily regardless of concomitant NSAID use. The combination of duloxetine and NSAIDs was associated with a statistically significantly higher incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs compared with duloxetine alone. A similarly higher incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs was seen in patients treated with placebo and concomitant NSAIDs compared with placebo alone. Bleeding-related TEAEs reported in the FAERS database were disproportionally more frequent for duloxetine taken with NSAIDs compared with the full FAERS background, but there was no difference in the reporting of bleeding-related TEAEs when the cases reported for duloxetine taken with NSAIDs were compared against the cases reported for NSAIDs alone. CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of NSAIDs was associated with a higher incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs in clinical trials regardless of whether patients were taking duloxetine or placebo; bleeding-related TEAEs did not appear to increase along with duloxetine dose regardless of NSAID use. In spontaneously reported post-marketing data, the combination of duloxetine and NSAID use was not associated with an increased reporting of bleeding-related events when compared to NSAID use alone.

Assessment of falls in older patients treated with duloxetine: a secondary analysis of a 24-week randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess fall events in older depressed patients during treatment with duloxetine. METHOD: Post hoc analysis of solicited fall events collected at each study visit using a questionnaire during a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 4 trial (November 2006 to November 2009). Older outpatients (≥ 65 years) with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria) were randomly assigned to duloxetine 60 mg/d (n = 249) or placebo (n = 121) for the 12-week acute phase, after which the duloxetine dose could be increased to 120 mg/d and nonresponding placebo patients could be switched to duloxetine 60 mg/d. Between-treatment differences in percentages of patients with fall events were compared by Fisher exact test. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) of falls per patient-year were also estimated. RESULTS: In the acute phase, 17.3% of patients treated with duloxetine 60 mg versus 11.6% treated with placebo (P = .170) experienced a fall event. Over 24 weeks, the percentage of patients with a fall while taking duloxetine 60 mg versus placebo was 24.0% versus 15.7% (P = .078), and the percentage was significantly higher in patients taking duloxetine regardless of dose (25.3%) than with placebo (15.7%, P = .045). Between-treatment differences in EAIRs over 12 weeks (0.26; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.72) and over 24 weeks (0.27; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.65) were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Direct assessment of fall events greatly increases the number of falls reported by patients. Although the EAIR of falls per patient-year associated with duloxetine was not significant in this trial, clinicians should remain vigilant about the possibility of falls in older patients with duloxetine or any antidepressant treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00406848.

Safety and efficacy of duloxetine treatment in older and younger patients with osteoarthritis knee pain: a post hoc, subgroup analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain is common in older patients and contributes to decreased quality of life. Older patients are generally at higher risk of adverse drug reactions due to age-related changes in physiology that affect drug disposition, metabolism, and response. These analyses examined efficacy and safety outcomes of older (≥65 years) versus younger patients from clinical trials of duloxetine in the management of OA knee pain. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of two 13-week studies, in which patients were randomized to duloxetine 60 mg/day or placebo. Both studies allowed potential dose changes after 7 weeks of dosing, with Study I re-randomizing duloxetine treated patients to either stay on 60 mg/day or increase to 120 mg/day; while Study II more closely mimicked clinical practice by escalating only non-responding patients to 120 mg/day. For all analyses patients were subgrouped by age: older (≥65 years) and younger (40-64 years). Overall efficacy and safety age-group comparisons of duloxetine versus placebo were performed using pooled data from both studies with all duloxetine dose levels combined. Safety analyses included discontinuation rates, treatment-emergent adverse events, and serious adverse events. To evaluate the effects of increasing the dose in non-responding patients, only Study II data were evaluated. Treatment arms were defined post hoc as placebo, duloxetine 60 mg/day, and duloxetine 60/120 mg/day. RESULTS: At study end, patients in each age group who were treated with duloxetine versus placebo had significantly greater improvement in pain (both, p<.05), and there was no significant effect of age on treatment (p=.72). Increasing the dose to 120 mg in non-responding patients was not found to have a significant advantage. Among treatment-emergent adverse events with duloxetine treatment, only dizziness had a significantly differential treatment effect (p=.02) with greater incidence over placebo in younger patients (6.6% versus 0.6%, p=.02), but not in older patients (1.0% versus 3.2%, p=.29). CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine was efficacious and generally well tolerated for management of symptomatic knee OA in both older and younger patients, but increasing the dose to 120 mg in non-responding patients did not provide additional benefit.

Association of candidate gene polymorphisms with diastolic blood pressure change in patients treated with duloxetine.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms in six genes were investigated for an association between diastolic blood pressure change and duloxetine treatment. Nominally significant within-gene association was found with SLC6A2 rs4436775 and rs4564560 and HTR2A rs6313, but after adjusting for multiple comparisons, these associations were no longer significant.

The effect of duloxetine treatment on cognition in patients with fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of duloxetine treatment on cognition in patients with fibromyalgia. METHODS: Cognitive testing was conducted in a subset of adult patients in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine. Patients met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia and had a score of 4 or higher on the Brief Pain Inventory 24-hour average pain severity item. Patients who consented to cognitive testing were randomized to duloxetine (n = 80) or placebo (n = 76). The primary end point was at Week 12. Speed of processing on tasks requiring visual attention, working memory, and executive function was assessed with a Symbol Digit Substitution Test and Trail-Making Test A and B. Episodic memory was tested using the Verbal Learning and Recall Test. The change from baseline to end point (last-observation-carried-forward analysis) was analyzed by an analysis of covariance model, which included baseline, treatment, investigator, and treatment-by-investigator interaction. RESULTS: Most of the patients were white (89%) women (92%), ranging in age from 21 to 88 years. Mean scores on the cognitive tests were within 2 SD of published scores for similar-aged participants in the general population, indicating no substantial impairment. Baseline-to-end point changes in cognitive scores did not differ significantly between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although scores differed somewhat from norms for age, substantial cognitive impairment was not evident in patients with fibromyalgia as assessed by the Symbol Digit Substitution Test, Trail-Making Test, and Verbal Learning and Recall Test. Overall, duloxetine treatment had neither positive nor negative effects on cognition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clintrials.gov NCT00673452.

Efficacy and Safety of Duloxetine in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain Who Used versus Did Not Use Concomitant Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs or Acetaminophen: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of 2 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

This subgroup analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who did or did not use concomitant nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen (APAP). Data were pooled from two 13-week randomized trials in patients with CLBP who were stratified according to NSAID/APAP use at baseline: duloxetine NSAID/APAP user (n = 137), placebo NSAID/APAP user (n = 82), duloxetine NSAID/APAP nonuser (n = 206), and placebo NSAID/APAP nonuser (n = 156). NSAID/APAP users were those patients who took NSAID/APAP for at least 14 days per month during 3 months prior to study entry. An analysis of covariance model that included therapy, study, baseline NSAID/APAP use (yes/no), and therapy-by-NSAID/APAP subgroup interaction was used to assess the efficacy. The treatment-by-NSAID/APAP use interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.31) suggesting no substantial evidence of differential efficacy for duloxetine over placebo on pain reduction or improvement in physical function between concomitant NSAID/APAP users and non-users.

Assessment of depressive symptoms and functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine versus placebo: primary outcomes from two trials conducted under the same protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Return of functional ability is a central goal in the treatment of major depressive disorder. We conducted two trials with the same protocol that was designed to assess functioning after 8 Weeks of treatment with duloxetine. METHODS: The a priori primary outcome was improvement in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) item 7 (work/activities). Secondary outcomes included improvement in depressive symptoms assessed by the HAMD Maier subscale, and improvement in functioning assessed by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale (SASS). Patients were randomly assigned to duloxetine 60 mg/day (Trial I, n = 257; Trial II, n = 261) or placebo (Trial I, n = 127; Trial II, n = 131). Changes from baseline were analyzed using a mixed-effects model repeated measures approach. RESULTS: At Week 8, duloxetine was superior to placebo in improving HAMD work/activities (p < 0.001) in Trial II, but not Trial I (p = 0.051), and Maier scores (p < 0.01) in both trials. At Week 12, duloxetine was superior to placebo on improving SASS scores in both trials, and the SDS in Trial II. CONCLUSION: Treatment with duloxetine was associated with significant improvement in depressive symptoms compared with placebo, but improvement in HAMD work/activities was inconsistent at 8 weeks.

PDI-4A: an augmented provisional screening instrument assessing 5 additional common anxiety-related diagnoses in adult primary care patients.

Patients with nonpsychotic mental health and emotional problems are commonly seen by primary care physicians. The objective of this study was to expand the Provisional Diagnostic Instrument-4 (PDI-4) to include a short self-report screen for 5 common anxiety-related diagnoses: panic attack (PA), social phobia (SP), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), hypochondriasis, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Primary care patients (N = 343) were originally evaluated with a self-report screen comprised of 85 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition symptom-based candidate questions, then interviewed by a trained rater for Structured Clinical Interview Research Version (SCID)/Adult ADHD Clinician Diagnostic Scale version 1.2 (ACDS) assessment and diagnosis. Responses to screening questions were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity for an SCID diagnosis, and to select the optimal cutoffs in symptom frequency for 1 or 2 questions for each additional anxiety-related diagnosis. The PDI-4 Anxiety (PDI-4A) contains 6 items for provisional differential diagnosis of PA, SP, OCD, hypochondriasis, and PTSD in addition to items for the PDI-4. Sensitivities/specificities were: PA, 88%/68%; SP, 57%/70%; OCD, 88%/61%; hypochondriasis, 67%/85%; and PTSD, 71%/72%. Screening for multiple common anxiety diagnoses may be desirable, although limitations may include reduced sensitivity and specificity for selected diagnoses. The PDI-4A may additionally help primary care physicians identify patients with PA, SP, OCD, hypochondriasis, and PTSD.

Duloxetine, pregabalin, and duloxetine plus gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management in patients with inadequate pain response to gabapentin: an open-label, randomized, noninferiority comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether duloxetine is noninferior to (as good as) pregabalin in the treatment of pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a 12-week, open-label study of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain who had been treated with gabapentin (≥ 900 mg/d) and had an inadequate response (defined as a daily pain score of ≥ 4 on a numerical rating scale [0-10 points]). The first patient was enrolled on September 28, 2006, and the last patient visit occurred on August 26, 2009. Patients were randomized to duloxetine monotherapy (n=138), pregabalin monotherapy (n=134), or a combination of duloxetine and gabapentin (n=135). The primary objective was a noninferiority comparison between duloxetine and pregabalin on improvement in the weekly mean of the diary-based daily pain score (0- to 10-point scale) at end point. Noninferiority would be declared if the mean improvement for duloxetine was no worse than the mean improvement for pregabalin, within statistical variability, by a margin of -0.8 unit. RESULTS: The mean change in the pain rating at end point was -2.6 for duloxetine and -2.1 for pregabalin. The 97.5% lower confidence limit was a -0.05 difference in means, establishing noninferiority. As to adverse effects, nausea, insomnia, hyperhidrosis, and decreased appetite were more frequent with duloxetine than pregabalin; insomnia, more frequent with duloxetine than duloxetine plus gabapentin; peripheral edema, more frequent with pregabalin than with duloxetine; and nausea, hyperhidrosis, decreased appetite, and vomiting, more frequent with duloxetine plus gabapentin than with pregabalin. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine was noninferior to pregabalin for the treatment of pain in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy who had an inadequate pain response to gabapentin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00385671.

Improvement in multiple dimensions of fatigue in patients with fibromyalgia treated with duloxetine: secondary analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Fatigue is one of the most disabling symptoms associated with fibromyalgia that greatly impacts quality of life. Fatigue was assessed as a secondary objective in a 2-phase, 24-week study in outpatients with American College of Rheumatology-defined fibromyalgia. METHODS: Patients were randomized to duloxetine 60-120 mg/d (N = 263) or placebo (N = 267) for the 12-week acute phase. At Week 12, all placebo-treated patients were switched to double-blind treatment with duloxetine for the extension phase. Fatigue was assessed at baseline and every 4 weeks with the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) scales: General Fatigue, Physical Fatigue, Mental Fatigue, Reduced Activity, and Reduced Motivation. Other assessments that may be associated with fatigue included Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain, numerical scales to rate anxiety, depressed mood, bothered by sleep difficulties, and musculoskeletal stiffness. Treatment-emergent fatigue-related events were also assessed. Changes from baseline to Week 12, and from Week 12 to Week 24, were analyzed by mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: At Week 12, duloxetine versus placebo significantly (all p < .05) reduced ratings on each MFI scale, BPI pain, anxiety, depressed mood, and stiffness. Improvement in ratings of being bothered by sleep difficulties was significant only at Weeks 4 and 8. At Week 24, mean changes in all measures indicated improvement was maintained for patients who received duloxetine for all 24 weeks (n = 176). Placebo-treated patients switched to duloxetine (n = 187) had significant within-group improvement in Physical Fatigue (Weeks 16, 20, and 24); General Fatigue (Weeks 20 and 24); Mental Fatigue (Week 20); and Reduced Activity (Weeks 20 and 24). These patients also experienced significant within-group improvement in BPI pain, anxiety, depressed mood, bothered by sleep difficulties, and stiffness. Overall, the most common (> 5% incidence) fatigue-related treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue, somnolence, and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with duloxetine significantly improved multiple dimensions of fatigue in patients with fibromyalgia, and improvement was maintained for up to 24 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registry NCT00673452.