Efficacy and safety of duloxetine versus placebo in adolescents with juvenile fibromyalgia: results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no medications approved for the treatment of juvenile fibromyalgia (JFM). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of duloxetine 30/60 mg once daily (QD) versus placebo in adolescents with JFM. METHODS: In this Phase 3b, multisite (US, Argentina, Puerto Rico, and India) trial, patients aged 13-17 years with JFM and a score of ≥4 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Modified Short Form: Adolescent Version (BPI) 24-h average pain severity score were randomized to duloxetine or placebo for the 13-week double-blind period. The starting duloxetine dose was 30 mg, with a target dose of 60 mg QD, as tolerated. The primary endpoint was the mean change in 24-h average pain severity of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) from baseline to Week 13, analyzed using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) technique. Secondary measures were BPI severity and interference scores; treatment response (≥30%, ≥50% reductions on BPI average pain severity); Pediatric Pain Questionnaire; Clinical Global Impression of Severity: Overall and Mental Illness scales; Functional Disability Inventory: child and parent versions; Children's Depression Inventory; Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children; and safety and tolerability. Continuous secondary efficacy measures were analyzed using analysis of covariance or MMRM, and categorical data using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and Fisher's exact test, where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients with JFM received duloxetine (N = 91) or placebo (N = 93), of which 149 patients (81.0%) completed the 13-week double-blind treatment period. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups; majority of the patients were Caucasian (77.17%) and females (75.0%), with a mean age of 15.53 years. For the primary measure, BPI average pain severity, the mean change was not statistically different between duloxetine and placebo (- 1.62 vs. -0.97, respectively; p = .052). For secondary efficacy outcomes, statistically significantly more duloxetine- versus placebo-treated patients had a treatment response (≥30% and ≥50% reductions on BPI average pain severity) and improvement of the general activity and relationships items on the BPI interference subscale. The percentage of patients reporting at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event was higher in the duloxetine versus placebo groups (82.42% vs. 62.37%, respectively; p = .003). The overall safety profile of duloxetine in this study was similar to that reported previously in duloxetine pediatric trials of other indications. CONCLUSIONS: The primary study outcome, mean change in 24-h BPI average pain severity rating from baseline to Week 13, did not significantly improve with duloxetine compared to placebo in patients with JFM. However, significantly more patients on duloxetine compared to placebo had a ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in pain severity. There were no new safety concerns related to duloxetine in the study population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01237587 . Registered 08 November, /2010.

Quantile regression to characterize solanezumab effects in Alzheimer's disease trials.

INTRODUCTION: In two solanezumab trials for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, 27% of patients had biomarker confirmation of amyloid status. Of these, approximately 25% of mild patients and approximately 10% of moderate patients were amyloid negative and, as a group, did not exhibit clinical progression typical of AD. This post-hoc analysis describes a statistical surrogate for amyloid status. METHODS: Quantile regression was used to examine solanezumab treatment effects at fixed percentiles of varying degrees of clinical progression, with lowest percentiles (minimal progression atypical of AD) and higher percentiles acting as surrogates for amyloid negativity or positivity, respectively. RESULTS: In mild patients, solanezumab treatment effect was greater in higher percentiles of progression and less in lowest percentiles (AD-atypical). In moderate patients, solanezumab did not show effects across most percentiles. DISCUSSION: Results are compatible with design of the ongoing solanezumab EXPEDITION 3 trial that limits patients to those with mild AD dementia and evidence of amyloid pathology.

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.

Efficacy of Duloxetine in Patients with Chronic Pain Conditions.

The primary objective of this study is to review the efficacy of duloxetine in treating chronic pain using the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommendations for clinical significance across chronic pain states. These include pain intensity, patient ratings of overall improvement, physical functioning, and mental functioning. This review comprised the side-by-side analyses of 12 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in patients with chronic pain (diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, chronic pain due to osteoarthritis, and chronic low back pain). Patients received duloxetine (60 to 120 mg/day) or placebo. Average pain reduction was assessed over 3 months as the primary efficacy outcome. Other measures used were physical function and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. In 10 of the 12 studies, statistically significant greater pain reduction was observed for duloxetine- compared with placebo-treated patients. The response rates based on average pain reduction, improvement of physical function, and global impression were comparable across all 4 chronic pain states. Compared with patients on placebo, significantly more patients treated with duloxetine reported a moderately important pain reduction (≥30% reduction) in 9 of the 12 studies, a minimally important improvement in physical function in 8 of the 12 studies, and a moderately important to substantial improvement in Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating in 11 of the 12 studies. The analyses reported here show that duloxetine is efficacious in treating chronic pain as demonstrated by significant improvement in pain intensity, physical functioning, and patient ratings of overall improvement.

Evaluation of duloxetine for chronic pain conditions.

Summary Duloxetine hydrochloride (duloxetine) is used as a nonopioid analgesic for the treatment of certain chronic pain conditions. It is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and has been approved in the USA for the management of both diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. In addition, based on several studies demonstrating that duloxetine was efficacious in the management of chronic low back pain and chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis, duloxetine was approved for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Effect sizes in studies of each of the aforementioned chronic pain conditions are comparable with other commonly used pain medications. Treatment-emergent adverse events are generally mild to moderate in severity, and tend to occur early and transiently.

Duloxetine versus placebo in patients with chronic low back pain: a 12-week, fixed-dose, randomized, double-blind trial.

UNLABELLED: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed efficacy and safety of duloxetine in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Adults (n = 401) with a nonneuropathic CLBP and average pain intensity of ≥ 4 on an 11-point numerical scale (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]) were treated with either duloxetine 60 mg once daily or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary measure was BPI average pain. Secondary endpoints included Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement (PGI-I), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-24), BPI-Severity (BPI-S), BPI-Interference (BPI-I), and response rates (either ≥ 30% or ≥ 50% BPI average pain reduction at endpoint). Health outcomes included Short Form-36, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Safety and tolerability were assessed. Compared with placebo-treated patients, duloxetine-treated patients reported a significantly greater reduction in BPI average pain (P ≤ .001). Similarly, duloxetine-treated patients reported significantly greater improvements in PGI-I, BPI-S, BPI-I, 50% response rates, and some health outcomes. The RMDQ and 30% response rate showed numerical improvements with duloxetine treatment. Significantly more patients in the duloxetine group (15.2%) than patients in the placebo group (5.4%) discontinued because of adverse events (P = .002). Nausea and dry mouth were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with rates significantly higher in duloxetine-treated patients. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides clinical evidence of the efficacy and safety of duloxetine at a fixed dose of 60 mg once daily in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). As of December 2009, duloxetine has not received regulatory approval for the treatment of CLBP.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine in the prevention of psychotic relapse.

Sustained response to antipsychotic therapy is an important outcome measure for patients with psychotic disorders. Placebo control in studies of relapse prevention contributes valuable information yet provokes much debate. This study, using placebo as a control, evaluated olanzapine's efficacy in preventing a psychotic relapse. Participants were stable minimally symptomatic outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The study included 4 phases: (1) 4-day to 9-day screening/evaluation (N = 583), (2) 6-week conversion to open-label olanzapine (N = 493; 10-20 mg/d), (3) 8-week stabilization on olanzapine (N = 458; 10-20 mg/d), and (4) 52-week randomized (2:1), double-blind maintenance with olanzapine (N = 224; 10-20 mg/d) or placebo (N = 102). Primary relapse criteria were clinically significant changes in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) positive item cluster or rehospitalization due to positive symptoms. Statistical methodology allowed sequential real-time estimation of efficacy across blinded treatment groups and multiple interim analyses, which permitted study termination when efficacy was significantly different between treatments. A significant between-treatment difference emerged 210 days after first patient randomization to double-blind treatment. Thus, 151 (46.3%) of the randomized patients were discontinued early and 34 (10.4%) of the planned patient enrollment were not required. The olanzapine group had a significantly longer time to relapse (P < 0.0001) than the placebo group. The 6-month cumulative estimated relapse rate (Kaplan-Meier) was 5.5% for olanzapine-treated patients versus 55.2% for placebo-treated patients. The design of this study enabled appropriate statistical testing of the primary hypothesis while minimizing exposure of patients to a less effective treatment than olanzapine. In remitted stabilized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, olanzapine demonstrated a positive benefit-to-risk profile in relapse prevention.

Effects of intramuscular olanzapine vs. haloperidol and placebo on QTc intervals in acutely agitated patients.

Prolongation of the QTc interval has been reported during treatment with oral antipsychotic agents and may be more pronounced during parenteral administration. Pooled QTc interval data from acutely agitated patients across four double-blind trials were compared. Databases included: placebo-controlled [two schizophrenia, one bipolar mania trials (n=565)]; haloperidol-controlled [two schizophrenia trials (n=482)]; geriatric placebo-controlled [1 dementia trial (n=204)]. Patients received 1-3 injections of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine (2.5-10 mg/injection), IM haloperidol (7.5 mg/injection), or IM placebo. At 2 and 24 h after IM olanzapine treatment, the mean QTc interval decreased approximately 3 ms from baseline in the placebo- and haloperidol-controlled databases. When there was a statistically significant difference between IM olanzapine and IM placebo, QTc intervals decreased during treatment with IM olanzapine and increased with IM placebo. The incidences of prolonged (endpoint >/=99th percentile of healthy adults or >/=500 ms) or lengthened (increase >/=60 ms) QTc intervals during treatment with IM olanzapine (<3% placebo- and haloperidol-controlled databases, <12% geriatric placebo-controlled database) were never significantly greater than with comparators. These data suggest that IM olanzapine has a favorable QTc interval profile in acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia, bipolar mania, or dementia.

Calming versus sedative effects of intramuscular olanzapine in agitated patients.

Distinct calming rather than nonspecific sedation is desirable for the treatment of acute agitation. In 3 double-blind studies, acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia (N = 311), bipolar mania (N = 201), or dementia (N = 206) were treated with intramuscular (1-3 injections/24 hrs) olanzapine (2.5-10.0 mg), haloperidol (7.5 mg), lorazepam (2.0 mg), or placebo. The Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES; Eli Lilly and Co.) and treatment-emergent adverse events assessed sedation. Across all studies, 1 patient (lorazepam-treated, bipolar) became unarousable. There were no significant between-group differences in ACES scores of deep sleep or unarousable at any time across. Excluding asleep patients, agitation remained significantly more reduced with olanzapine than placebo (P <.05). The incidences of adverse events indicative of sedation were not significantly different with olanzapine versus comparators. For the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia, bipolar mania, or dementia, intramuscular olanzapine-treated patients experienced no more sedation than haloperidol- or lorazepam-treated patients and experienced distinct calming rather than nonspecific sedation.

Intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in acute schizophrenia: antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety during the first 24 hours of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety of intramuscular (i.m.) olanzapine and i.m. haloperidol during the first 24 hours of treatment of acute schizophrenia. METHOD: Patients (n = 311) with acute schizophrenia were randomly allocated (2:2:1) to receive i.m. olanzapine (10.0 mg, n = 131), i.m. haloperidol (7.5 mg, n = 126), or i.m. placebo (n = 54). RESULTS: After the first injection, i.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol and superior to i.m. placebo for reducing mean change scores from baseline on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BRPS) Positive at 2 hours (-2.9 olanzapine, -2.7 haloperidol, and -1.5 placebo) and 24 hours (-2.8 olanzapine, -3.2 haloperidol, and -1.3 placebo); the BPRS Total at 2 hours (-14.2 olanzapine,-13.1 haloperidol, and -7.1 placebo) and 24 hours (-12.8 olanzapine, -12.9 haloperidol, and -6.2 placebo); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale at 24 hours (-0.5 olanzapine, -0.5 haloperidol, and -0.1 placebo). Patients treated with i.m. olanzapine had significantly fewer incidences of treatment-emergent parkinsonism (4.3% olanzapine vs 13.3% haloperidol, P = 0.036), but not akathisia (1.1% olanzapine vs 6.5% haloperidol, P = 0.065), than did patients treated with i.m. haloperidol; they also required significantly less anticholinergic treatment (4.6% olanzapine vs 20.6% haloperidol, P < 0.001). Mean extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) safety scores improved significantly from baseline during i.m. olanzapine treatment, compared with a general worsening during i.m. haloperidol treatment (Simpson-Angus Scale total score mean change: -0.61 olanzapine vs 0.70 haloperidol; P < 0.001; Barnes Akathisia Scale global score mean change: -0.27 olanzapine vs 0.01 haloperidol; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: I.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol for reducing the symptoms of acute schizophrenia during the first 24 hours of treatment, the efficacy of both being evident within 2 hours after the first injection. In general, more EPS were observed during treatment with i.m. haloperidol than with i.m. olanzapine.