Factors Associated With Developing Neurocognitive Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Lorlatinib After Progression on Other Targeted Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: The safety profile of lorlatinib includes neurocognitive adverse events (NAEs). Baseline factors associated with developing NAEs remain poorly characterized. METHODS: Records from patients who received lorlatinib through prospective studies at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH, n = 124) or the phase 1/2 B7461001 (NCT01970865; n = 248) study were reviewed to identify potential associations between comorbidities, baseline medications, and NAEs. RESULTS: Most patients experienced a NAE (MGH: 60%, B7461001: 49%). Cognitive effects occurred in 40% and 29% of patients in the MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively. Brain metastases (p = 0.008), brain radiation (p = 0.033), psychiatric illness (p = 0.008), psychiatric medications (p < 0.001), antiepileptics (p < 0.001), and stimulants (p = 0.026) were associated with developing cognitive effects in B7461001. Mood effects occurred in 36% and 23% of patients in the MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively. In the MGH cohort, psychiatric illness (p = 0.02) and stimulants (p = 0.01) were associated with developing mood effects whereas brain surgery (p = 0.020), psychiatric medications (p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (p = 0.002), and sedatives (p = 0.034) were associated with developing mood effects in B7461001. Psychotic effects were infrequent (MGH: 3%, B7461001: 9%) and were associated with brain surgery in the MGH cohort (p = 0.001) and age in B7461001 (p = 0.014). Speech effects were observed in 23% and 11% of patients in the MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively. Brain radiation (p = 0.012) and antiepileptics (p < 0.001) were associated with speech effects in B7461001. Dose reductions were implemented for 52% and 18% of patients with NAEs in MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively, with mitigating effect. CONCLUSIONS: Neurocognitive effects from lorlatinib are common. Lorlatinib-related NAEs may be influenced by multiple factors, including brain metastases, brain radiation, psychiatric illness, and use of neurotropic medications.

Real-World Outcomes Among Crizotinib-Treated Patients with ROS1-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Community Oncology-Based Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Crizotinib was the first oral targeted therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on 11 March 2016, for c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data to support long-term clinical benefit in a real-world setting are limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess real-world clinical outcomes among patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC treated with crizotinib in the US community oncology setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using iKnowMed electronic health record data to identify adult patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC who initiated crizotinib between 17 January 2013 (time of the addition of crizotinib for ROS1-positive NSCLC to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines) and 1 June 2019 with a potential follow-up period through 1 December 2019. Patient characteristics were assessed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to evaluate time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). A Cox proportional hazards model was conducted to determine factors associated with OS. RESULTS: The study cohort included 38 ROS1-positive patients treated with crizotinib. The median age was 68 years (interquartile range 60.0-73.0) and 65.8% were female. Over 50% were current/former smokers, and 18.4% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2. Overall, 21 (55.3%) patients remained on crizotinib, 10 (26.3%) had evidence of subsequent treatment, and 16 (42.1%) died. The median TTD, TTNT, and OS were 25.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.2-not reached (NR)], 25.0 months (95% CI 5.2-61.0), and 36.2 months (95% CI 15.9-NR), respectively. In a multivariate Cox regression model, ECOG performance status of 2 was associated with a 4.9-fold higher risk of death (hazard ratio = 4.9; 95% CI 1.1-21.4) compared to ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. CONCLUSIONS: This ROS1-positive NSCLC real-world population was older and had a higher proportion of smokers and of patients with poorer ECOG performance status than those investigated in clinical trials. Nevertheless, our findings support the clinical benefit of crizotinib in this patient population with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC.

Association of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio with Efficacy of First-Line Avelumab plus Axitinib vs. Sunitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Enrolled in the Phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Adult patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear-cell component, ≥1 measurable lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, fresh or archival tumor specimen, and adequate renal, cardiac, and hepatic function were included. Retrospective analyses of the association between baseline NLR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms were performed using the first interim analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were conducted. Translational data were assessed to elucidate the underlying biology associated with differences in NLR. RESULTS: Patients with below-median NLR had longer observed PFS with avelumab plus axitinib [stratified HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634-1.153] or sunitinib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.415-0.745). In the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms, respectively, median PFS was 13.8 and 11.2 months in patients with below-median NLR, and 13.3 and 5.6 months in patients with median-or-higher NLR. Below-median NLR was also associated with longer observed OS in the avelumab plus axitinib (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300-0.871) and sunitinib arms (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.174-0.511). Tumor analyses showed an association between NLR and key biological characteristics, suggesting a role of NLR in underlying mechanisms influencing clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Current data support NLR as a prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced RCC receiving avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma Treated in U.S. Oncology Clinical Practices: Results from SPEAR-Merkel.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) has been associated with improved outcomes in patients with locally advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (laMCC) and metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC). The primary objective of SPEAR-Merkel was to explore treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with laMCC or mMCC initiating first-line (1L) treatment with avelumab, non-avelumab IO, or chemotherapy in a U.S. community oncology setting. METHODS: Adult patients with laMCC or mMCC initiating 1L avelumab, non-avelumab IO, or chemotherapy from January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019, were identified from the U.S. Oncology Network electronic health care record database and followed up through September 30, 2019. Baseline characteristics and HCRU were analyzed descriptively, including physician-stated overall response rate in the real-world clinical setting. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to measure duration of response, real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among the overall population (n = 94), 28 received 1L avelumab (9 laMCC, 19 mMCC), 26 received 1L non-avelumab IO (8 laMCC, 18 mMCC), and 40 received 1L chemotherapy (10 laMCC, 30 mMCC). The real-world overall response rate was 64.3%, 61.5%, and 42.5%, respectively. From 1L treatment initiation, median rwPFS was 11.4, 8.1, and 6.1 months, and median OS was 20.2 months, not reached, and 14.7 months for the respective cohorts. CONCLUSION: SPEAR-Merkel showed that patients with laMCC or mMCC treated with IO had improved outcomes compared with chemotherapy in clinical practice. The study provides insight on utilization and clinical outcomes associated with newer, more innovative therapies in clinical practice, which may help clinicians understand the variety of newer treatment options for both laMCC and mMCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: To the authors' knowledge, SPEAR-Merkel is the first study to evaluate real-world clinical outcomes in patients with locally advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (laMCC) and metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) receiving first-line (1L) avelumab, non-avelumab immuno-oncology therapies, or chemotherapy in a real-world setting. SPEAR-Merkel showed clinical benefit for immuno-oncology therapies compared with chemotherapy. The study provides insight on uses and clinical outcomes associated with innovative therapies in clinical practice, which may help clinicians understand the variety of newer treatment options for both laMCC and mMCC. The study is of particular importance as it shows that chemotherapy is still being used as 1L treatment despite its inferior clinical and safety profile.

Effects of early vs delayed progression on clinical and economic outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line therapy: results from the IMPACT RCC claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: A key therapeutic goal of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment is delayed disease progression. The degree to which early therapeutic success affects downstream outcomes is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and economic impact of early vs delayed disease progression in patients with mRCC treated with first-line (1L) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) followed by second-line (2L) therapy in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database. METHODS: Adult patients newly diagnosed with mRCC who were treated with a TKI as 1L therapy and who progressed to 2L therapy from October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2018, were identified from the US VHA database. Patients were stratified by median time from initiation of 1L therapy to initiation of 2L therapy into early (median time or sooner)and delayed (longer than the median) progression cohorts. Clinical outcomes (time to 2L therapy discontinuation, time to third-line [3L] treatment initiation, and overall survival) were assessed descriptively, and health care resource utilization and costs were compared between patients in the early and those in the delayed progression cohorts. Survival analyses (Kaplan-Meier curves) were used to estimate descriptively the median time to discontinuation, time to next line of treatment, and time to death for each cohort. Multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for the influence of differences in cohort characteristics, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to descriptively assess the impact of predictive factors on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 289 patients were included in the analysis: 145 in the early progression cohort and 144 in the delayed progression cohort. Baseline characteristics were similar between the early and delayed progression cohorts. Median time from 1L therapy initiation to 2L therapy discontinuation was 7.9 months in the early progression cohort and 18.0 months in the delayed progression cohort, whereas time from 1L therapy initiation to 3L therapy initiation was 9.4 and 21.8 months, respectively; overall survival was 19.7 and 36.4 months, respectively. Descriptive analysis revealed generally lower risks for 2L therapy discontinuation (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.31-0.52), 3L therapy initiation (HR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.32-0.55), and death (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33-0.64) for those with delayed progression. After adjustment for possible confounding factors, comparative analysis during the follow-up period showed that delayed progression was associated with a shorter median all-cause hospital length of stay (0.4 days vs 0.8 days for early progression; P = 0.0004), fewer pharmacy visits (3.57 vs 4.08 visits; P = 0.0266), and lower total health care costs ($10,342 vs $13,388; P = 0.0347) per patient per month. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mRCC, early progression after 1L therapy initiation is associated with generally worse clinical outcomes and statistically significantly greater health care resource utilization and costs than delayed progression. This finding highlights the importance of initiating therapy with an optimal 1L treatment regimen that has been proven to delay disease progression. DISCLOSURES This study was sponsored by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA, and Pfizer Inc. EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer Inc. were involved in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Liu and Bhanegaonkar are employed by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA. Kasturi was employed by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA, at the time of this study. Kim and Krulewicz are employed by Pfizer Inc. Dieyi is an employee of STATinMED Research, which received consulting fees from EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer Inc. Hutson has received grants from Pfizer Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Inc., and Eisai Co., Ltd., outside of this work. Data from this analysis were presented at the Virtual International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2020 conference, May 18-20, 2020; the virtual American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, May 29-31, 2020; and AMCP Nexus 2020 Virtual, October 20-23, 2020.

Real-World Outcomes Among US Veterans Health Administration Patients Newly Diagnosed with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma and Treated with First-Line Monotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Substantial unmet needs exist among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This retrospective study evaluated treatment patterns as well as clinical and economic outcomes associated with first-line monotherapy among patients with mRCC in the USA. METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with mRCC initiating at least one first-line therapy (1L) from 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2018 (index date = 1L start date) were identified from the US Veterans Health Administration database. Treatment patterns, clinical outcomes (time to next treatment [TNT] defined by earliest of switch to non-index therapy or re-initiation of index therapy after a more than 90-day gap, time to treatment discontinuation [TTD], overall survival [OS]), and costs were evaluated among patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and other monotherapies. Standard descriptive statistics were presented. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of 759 patients (median age 68.0 years), 85.0%, 8.0%, 4.3%, and 2.6% were treated with TKI, mTOR, ICI, or other therapy in 1L, respectively. Advancement rates (to second-line [2L] therapy) ranged from 10.0 (ICI) to 45.1 per 100 person years (TKI). The 12-month OS rates ranged from 47.4% (TKI) to 67.7% (mTOR). The median TNT ranged from 3.8 (mTOR) to 9.6 months (ICI), and median TTD ranged from 2.3 (mTOR) to 4.7 months (TKI). Total all-cause mean costs per patient per month ranged from $12,466 (mTOR) to $19,812 (ICI). CONCLUSION: These results indicate high unmet medical needs among patients with mRCC treated with 1L monotherapies. Novel combination therapies (e.g., ICI + ICI, ICI + TKI) may improve front-line outcomes for patients with poor prognoses.

Real-world clinical outcomes with first-line avelumab in locally advanced/metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma in the USA: SPEAR-Merkel.

Aim: To assess clinical outcomes in patients with locally advanced (la) or metastatic (m) Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) initiating first-line (1L) avelumab in a USA community oncology setting. Materials & methods: Adults with laMCC or mMCC initiating 1L avelumab were identified from The US Oncology Network electronic health record database and chart review. Results: Median overall survival and progression-free survival were not reached in laMCC (n = 9) vs 20.2 and 10.0 months in mMCC (n = 19); response rates were similar (66.7% vs 63.2%). Conclusion: This is the first study to show clinical benefit in patients with laMCC receiving 1L avelumab in a US real-world setting. Response rates in patients with mMCC were consistent with pivotal trials.

Lay abstract Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. Because MCC progresses quickly, many patients have a poor prognosis. Avelumab is a type of drug that helps the patient's immune system to fight cancer. Avelumab was the first such drug approved by the US FDA for treating metastatic MCC based on the results of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 clinical trial. In SPEAR-Merkel, we studied how MCC patients with locally advanced as well as metastatic disease responded when they were treated with first-line avelumab in a real-world setting. These patients were from oncology practices in communities throughout the USA. Overall response rates in SPEAR-Merkel were comparable between patients with locally advanced and metastatic MCC. Importantly, we found that these patients experienced survival benefit similar to patients in the JAVELIN Merkel 200 (part B) study and other real-world studies.

Real-world symptoms, disease burden, resource use and quality of life in US patients with advanced renal cell cancer.

Aim: To assess symptoms, healthcare resource utilization and health-related quality of life in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) clinical practice. Materials & methods: The USA point-in-time survey of physicians and patients was conducted between February and September 2019. Results: Data were available for 227 patients. Mean (standard deviation) number of symptoms was 3.4 (3.2); differences were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk categories (p < 0.001), with fewer symptoms in favorable-risk patients. Disease burden, measured by greater healthcare resource utilization and worse health-related quality of life, was high, particularly in International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium intermediate- or poor- versus favorable-risk patients. In total, 45 patients (21.6%) were hospitalized due to aRCC within a 6-month period, 35 (16.8%) had one hospitalization and ten (4.8%) experienced ≥2 hospitalizations due to aRCC. Mean (standard deviation) 19-Item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score was 53.6 (13.2) for this population, significantly lower than the reference value (59.8; p < 0.001). Conclusion: A clear need exists for improved disease management in patients with aRCC.

Lay abstract Late-stage/advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) is kidney cancer that has spread to other body parts. aRCC is expensive to treat and affects patients in many ways. New treatments have become available, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immuno-oncology therapies. The type of treatment recommended depends on the patient's International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk score. This is a way of classifying patients as having a good, intermediate or poor survival risk. We asked physicians questions about their patients such as their age, how long they had aRCC, their treatment and symptoms, and asked patients how aRCC affected their lives, including how often they visited doctors and hospitals. aRCC had the greatest effect on patients with poor-risk scores. Those patients had more symptoms and worse quality of life than patients with intermediate or good risk scores. Treatment also affected patients' lives, although not as much as risk score. Patients with aRCC need better treatment options to help improve their quality of life.

Treatment patterns, outcomes and clinical characteristics in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a real-world US study.

Aim: Assessing treatment patterns, outcomes and clinical characteristics in advanced renal cell carcinoma clinical practice. Materials & methods: A US cross-sectional physician survey conducted February-September 2019. Results: Surveyed physicians reported first-line treatment of 445 patients involving tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (51.0%), immuno-oncology (IO/IO combination) therapy (25.8%) or other regimens (23.1%). A total of 60.9% had physician-assessed IMDC risk. Of these 61.9, 50.9 and 27.6% of patients with favorable, intermediate and poor risk, respectively, received tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy. A total of 16.7, 26.9 and 34.5% of patients with favorable, intermediate or poor risk received IO/IO combination therapy. Complete/partial responses (∼35% patients) remained comparable across first-line treatments. Conclusion: Guideline-recommended therapies are not widely prescribed. Many patients experienced poor clinical outcomes highlighting a need for more effective treatments.

History of depressive and/or anxiety disorders as a predictor of treatment response: a post hoc analysis of a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine controlled release in patients with fibromyalgia.

BACKGROUND: Despite of a high comorbidity of depressive and/or anxiety disorders with fibromyalgia, information on the clinical implications of this comorbidity is limited but antidepressants are commonly prescribed to treat fibromyalgia in clinical practice. We investigated whether a history of depressive and/or anxiety disorders was associated with response to paroxetine controlled release (CR) in the treatment of fibromyalgia. METHODS: One hundred sixteen (116) fibromyalgia subjects were randomized to receive paroxetine CR or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was treatment response defined as >or=25% reduction in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) score. In multivariate logistic regression, we determined if a history of depression and/or anxiety disorders was an independent predictor of response to paroxetine CR. RESULTS: In logistic regression, the history of depression and/or anxiety did not predict treatment response as measured by >or=25% reduction in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) score (OR=0.66, 95% CI=.29-1.49, Wald=0.97, p=0.32), while the drug status (paroxetine CR) was significantly associated with treatment response (OR=2.57, CI=1.2-5.61, Wald=5.5, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of patients with fibromyalgia had a history of anxiety and or depressive disorders. However response to treatment of fibromyalgia symptoms with paroxetine CR was not associated with a history of depressive and/or anxiety disorders. Our findings need to be confirmed in more adequately-powered and well-designed subsequent studies.

History of early abuse as a predictor of treatment response in patients with fibromyalgia: a post-hoc analysis of a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine controlled release.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a post-hoc analysis to determine whether a history of physical or sexual abuse was associated with response to treatment in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine controlled release (CR) in fibromyalgia. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine controlled release (CR) (dose 12.5-62.5 mg/day) was conducted in patients with fibromyalgia for 12 weeks. A total of 112 subjects provided complete information on childhood history of abuse that was recorded using the Sexual and Physical Abuse Questionnaire and randomized to treatments. Outcome evaluations in the abuse subgroup were identical to those in the entire sample. Health Status was determined using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Fibromylagia symptom severity was determined using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) and the Visual Analogue Scale for Pain (VAS). The primary outcome was treatment response defined as > or = 25% reduction in the FIQ-total score. Secondary outcomes include changes in scores on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Improvement (CGI-S and CGI-I respectively) and SF-36. RESULTS: The rate of childhood physical and/or sexual abuse was 52.7% (n=59). The baseline characteristics (health status, perceived stress, symptom severity) were not associated with abuse history. In logistic regression, the history of abuse did not predict treatment response as measured by > or = 25% reduction in FIQ-total score (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.18-1.60, P = 0.35), while the drug status (paroxetine CR) was significantly associated with treatment response (OR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.12-5.64, P = 0.02). Abuse history did not predict CGI-I (P = 0.32) or CGI-S (P = 0.74) improvements during treatment. After 12 weeks of treatment, subjects with sexual abuse history showed significantly lower mean change in health status (SF-36) than those without sexual abuse history (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Although, a significant proportion of patients with fibromyalgia reported a history of abuse, it does not appear to have any significant clinical correlates at baseline. History of abuse did not predict response to treatment in patients with fibromyalgia participating in a controlled trial of paroxetine controlled release. Prospective, well-designed studies are needed to confirm whether selective serotonin uptake inhibitors are effective in patients with fibromyalgia irrespective of their abuse history.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine controlled-release in irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal (GI) disease that causes significant impairment in quality of life and accounts for $8 billion per year to the healthcare system and loss of productivity in the workplace. OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the efficacy and safety of paroxetine controlled-release (paroxetine-CR) in patients with IBS. METHOD: Seventy-two patients with IBS participated in a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of paroxetine-CR (12.5 mg-50 mg/day). Efficacy was measured by Composite Pain Scores (primary outcome) and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S) ratings. RESULTS: In intent-to-treat analyses, there were no significant differences between paroxetine-CR (N=36) and placebo (N=36) on reduction in Composite Pain Scores, although the proportion of responders on CGI-I was significantly higher in the paroxetine-CR group. The treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit for paroxetine-CR over placebo on the primary outcome measure, although there was improvement in secondary outcome measures. Overall, paroxetine-CR seems to have potential benefit in IBS. Studies with adequate samples may clarify the role of paroxetine-CR in IBS.

Differences in medication adherence and healthcare resource utilization patterns: older versus newer antidepressant agents in patients with depression and/or anxiety disorders.

BACKGROUND: Given the number of antidepressants available and their rising costs, healthcare payers have initiated restrictive reimbursement policies for newer antidepressants, without consideration for differences in their effectiveness or tolerability. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to comprehensively compare medication adherence rates and associated healthcare utilization costs for patients using later-generation versus earlier-generation antidepressants in a managed care setting. Antidepressants launched after 2002 were deemed third-generation antidepressants, while antidepressants available prior to 2002 were deemed first-generation (TCAs and MAOIs) and second-generation (serotonin and noradrenaline [norepinephrine]-dopamine reuptake inhibitors). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis using medical and pharmacy data from over 75 managed care plans covering 55 million lives. SETTING/PATIENTS: All patients receiving an antidepressant between 1 January 2002 and 30 September 2004 were identified. The index date for patients was the date of their first antidepressant prescription within this time period. Patients had to (i) have a diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorder, or depression and anxiety disorder within 6 months prior to or 30 days after their index prescription; (ii) be at least 18 years of age, without having taken antidepressant therapy for 6 months prior to their index date; and (iii) be continuously eligible for 6 months prior to their index date and during their 6-month follow-up period. Patients were excluded if they had a diagnosis of psychosis-related disease, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease, or were initiated on psychosis-related medications. INTERVENTION/MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patients meeting selection criteria were followed for 6 months to assess rates of antidepressant adherence, therapy change rates and medical healthcare costs. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 266 665 patients met the study criteria. Approximately 66% were female, with a mean age of 39 years. About 63% had a diagnosis of depression, 31% had an anxiety disorder diagnosis and 6% had diagnoses for both an anxiety disorder and depression. Therapy change: Therapy change within 6 months occurred in 18% of patients receiving third-generation agents compared with 21% and 40% for second- and first-generation agents, respectively. The odds of a therapy change were significantly lower with third-generation antidepressants compared with both older agent cohorts. Adherence: Of patients receiving third-generation antidepressants, 33.6% were adherent compared with 29.3% and 12.4% of patients receiving second- and first-generation antidepressants, respectively. Newer agents also had better adherence rates across all diagnostic cohorts. After adjusting for baseline differences, the odds of being adherent to therapy were significantly lower for those taking second- and first-generation agents versus newer antidepressants. Among the newer agents, the proportion of patients adherent to their therapy was: venlafaxine extended release 38%, paroxetine controlled release (CR) 35%, escitalopram 34%, duloxetine 32% and bupropion extended release (XL) 31%. Healthcare utilization: Of the patients taking older antidepressants, 13% (second generation) and 21% (first generation) were hospitalized at least once for any reason compared with 12% of patients taking newer agents. Overall, the odds of all-cause hospitalization within 6 months of therapy initiation were significantly higher for patients taking older antidepressants. Among the newer agents, hospitalization rates ranged from 15.9% for duloxetine to 12.5% for paroxetine CR and bupropion XL. The unadjusted 6-month total medical costs (not including pharmacy costs) per patient were $US 3514 for second-generation, $US 5744 for first-generation and $US 3284 for newer antidepressants. After controlling for baseline differences, patients receiving second- and first-generation antidepressants incurred 12% and 44% higher costs, respectively. The unadjusted 6-month medical costs for the newer agents ranged from $US 2715 for paroxetine CR to $US 6042 for duloxetine. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide essential information for healthcare decision makers about the potential advantages of newer generation antidepressants versus older generation antidepressants, as well as the differences between the specific newer agents, with respect to improved rates of adherence and therapy change, reduced hospitalizations and healthcare costs.

Estimates of serotonin and norepinephrine transporter inhibition in depressed patients treated with paroxetine or venlafaxine.

Paroxetine and venlafaxine are potent serotonin transporter (SERT) antagonists and weaker norepinephrine transporter (NET) antagonists. However, the relative magnitude of effect at each of these sites during treatment is unknown. Using a novel blood assay that estimates CNS transporter occupancy we estimated the relative SERT and NET occupancy of paroxetine and venlafaxine in human subjects to assess the relative magnitude of SERT and NET inhibition. Outpatient subjects (N=86) meeting criteria for major depression were enrolled in a multicenter, 8 week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, antidepressant treatment study. Subjects were treated by forced-titration of paroxetine CR (12.5-75 mg/day) or venlafaxine XR (75-375 mg/day) over 8 weeks. Blood samples were collected weekly to estimate transporter inhibition. Both medications produced dose-dependent inhibition of the SERT and NET. Maximal SERT inhibition at week 8 for paroxetine and venlafaxine was 90% (SD 7) and 85% (SD 10), respectively. Maximal NET inhibition for paroxetine and venlafaxine at week 8 was 36% (SD 19) and 60% (SD 13), respectively. The adjusted mean change from baseline (mean 28.6) at week 8 LOCF in MADRS total score was -16.7 (SE 8.59) and -17.3 (SE 8.99) for the paroxetine and venlafaxine-treated patients, respectively. The magnitudes of the antidepressant effects were not significantly different from each other (95%CI -3.42, 4.54, p=0.784). The results clearly demonstrate that paroxetine and venlafaxine are potent SERT antagonists and less potent NET antagonists in vivo. NET antagonism has been posited to contribute to the antidepressant effects of these compounds. The clinical significance of the magnitude of NET antagonism by both medications remains unclear at present.

Paroxetine CR augmentation for posttraumatic stress disorder refractory to prolonged exposure therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the efficacy of "next step" strategies for patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) who remain symptomatic despite treatment. This study prospectively examines the relative efficacy of augmentation of continued prolonged exposure therapy (PE) with paroxetine CR versus placebo for individuals remaining symptomatic despite a course of PE. METHOD: Adult outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for PTSD were recruited from February 2003 to September 2005 at 4 academic centers. Phase I consisted of 8 sessions of individual PE over a 4- to 6-week period. Participants who remained symptomatic, defined as a score of >or= 6 on the Short PTSD Rating Interview (SPRINT) and a Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) score >or= 3, were randomly assigned to the addition of paroxetine CR or matched placebo to an additional 5 sessions of PE (Phase II). RESULTS: Consistent with prior studies, the 44 Phase I completers improved significantly with initial PE (SPRINT: paired t = 7.6, df = 41, p < .0001; CGI-S: paired t = 6.37, df = 41, p < .0001). Counter to our hypothesis, however, we found no additive benefit of augmentation of continued PE with paroxetine CR compared to pill placebo for the 23 randomly assigned patients, with relatively minimal further gains overall in Phase II. CONCLUSION: Although replication with larger samples is needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn, our data do not support the addition of paroxetine CR compared with placebo to continued PE for individuals with PTSD who remain symptomatic after initial PE, suggesting that the development of novel treatment approaches for PTSD refractory to PE is needed. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00215163.

History of depressive and anxiety disorders and paroxetine response in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: post hoc analysis from a placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Although irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is highly comorbid with depressive and anxiety disorders, information on the clinical implications of this comorbidity is limited. We investigated whether a history of depressive and/or anxiety disorders was associated with response to treatment in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine controlled release (CR) in IBS. METHOD: Seventy-two IBS subjects (diagnosed using Rome II criteria) were recruited from August 2003 to November 2005 and randomly assigned to receive flexibly dosed paroxetine CR (dose, 12.5-50 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI-Plus version) was used to ascertain current (exclusionary) or past diagnoses of depressive and anxiety disorders. Subjective depression, anxiety, and stress were assessed at entry and throughout the trial using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Severity of IBS symptoms was determined by the Composite Pain Score (CPS), administered via Interactive Voice Response System, and the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI). The primary outcome was treatment response defined as ≥ 25% reduction in CPS from randomization to end of treatment. A post hoc analysis (multivariate logistic regression) was done to evaluate whether a history of depressive and/or anxiety disorder was associated with response to medication. RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (CPS, BDI, BAI, PSS, CGI scores) were similar between groups (history of depressive/anxiety disorder vs. no history). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, treatment response was not predicted by history of depressive and/or anxiety disorder (OR = 0.58, CI = 0.29 to 1.68, p = .32) or drug status (paroxetine CR vs. placebo) (OR = 1.26, CI = 0.68 to 3.21, p = .19). Drug status was significantly associated with the secondary outcome variable of treatment response as defined by a CGI improvement score of 1 to 2 (OR = 12.14, CI = 2.9 to 48.4, p < .001). Paroxetine CR was safe and well tolerated during the study. CONCLUSIONS: History of depressive and/or anxiety disorder was not associated with response of IBS symptoms to paroxetine CR. Conclusions are limited due to insufficient statistical power. Further research is needed to clarify the role of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of IBS and to elucidate the treatment ramifications of comorbid psychiatric disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00610909.

A randomized, controlled, trial of controlled release paroxetine in fibromyalgia.

PURPOSE: We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine controlled release, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in fibromyalgia. METHODS: After excluding patients with current major depression and anxiety disorders, 116 subjects with fibromyalgia were enrolled in a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial of paroxetine controlled release (12.5-62.5 mg/day). The primary outcome measure was proportion of responders as defined as a> or =25% reduction in scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) from randomization to end of treatment. Secondary outcome measures included changes in FIQ scores, Clinical Global Impression -Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S) scores, Visual Analogue Scale for pain scores, number of tender points, and scores on the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). RESULTS: Significantly more patients in paroxetine controlled release group (57%) showed a> or =25% reduction in FIQ compared to placebo (33%) (P=.016). Paroxetine controlled release was significantly superior to placebo in reducing the FIQ total score (P =.015). The CGI-I ratings significantly favored the drug over placebo (P<.005). The improvements on other secondary outcome measures between the 2 groups were not statistically significant. Drowsiness, dry mouth, blurred vision, genital disorders, and anxiety were reported more frequently with paroxetine controlled release. The mean dose of paroxetine controlled release was 39.1 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Paroxetine controlled release appears to be well-tolerated and improve the overall symptomatology in patients with fibromyalgia without current mood or anxiety disorders. However, its effect on pain measures seems to be less robust.

Paroxetine treatment in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in pediatric major depressive disorder. METHOD: Subjects 7 to 17 years old with major depressive disorder received paroxetine (10-50 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks from 2000 to 2001. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised total score at week 8 last observation carried forward). Safety was primarily assessed by spontaneous reporting of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients (intent to treat) were randomized to paroxetine (n = 104) or placebo (n = 102). Week 8 Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised total score adjusted mean changes from baseline for patients receiving paroxetine and placebo were -22.58 (SE 1.47) and -23.38 points (SE 1.60), respectively (0.80, 95% confidence interval -3.09 to 4.69, p = 0.684). Increased cough (5.9% versus 2.9%), dyspepsia (5.9% versus 2.9%), vomiting (5.9% versus 2.0%), and dizziness (5.0% versus 1.0%) occurred in >or=5% of the paroxetine group and at least twice that of the placebo group. Six of 104 (5.8%) paroxetine patients reported serious adverse events compared to 1 placebo patient (1.0%). The incidence of adverse events of suicidal behavior and/or ideation while taking study medication (excluding taper) was 1.92% (2/104) for paroxetine versus 0.98% (1/102) for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Paroxetine was not shown to be more efficacious than placebo for treating pediatric major depressive disorder.

Analysis of electrocardiographic data following use of paroxetine in pediatric depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective analysis of electrocardiographic (ECG) data investigated the cardiovascular effects of paroxetine 10-50 mg/day in pediatric patients (7-18 years of age). Data were collected from three 8- to 10-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of paroxetine in pediatric patients with major depressive disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder. METHOD: Electrocardiograms (ECGs) were retrospectively retrieved from 63 study sites in the United States and Canada. Only patients with at least one screening and one on-treatment ECG were included. ECGs were analyzed for heart rate, QT interval corrected using Bazett's formula (QTcB) and Fridericia's formula (QTcF), at screening and while being treated. PR, R-R, and QRS intervals and the maximum change in QTcB and QTcF from screening to endpoint were determined. Clinically significant thresholds were defined a priori. RESULTS: A total of 1,451 ECGs from 449 patients receiving placebo (n = 207), paroxetine (n = 200), or imipramine (n = 42) were analyzed. Treatment with paroxetine did not significantly increase QTcB or QTcF or any ECG parameters compared with placebo. Treatment with imipramine significantly increased heart rate and QTcB, R-R, and QRS intervals compared with either paroxetine or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this retrospective study indicate that paroxetine (10-50 mg/day) is unlikely to be associated with significant ECG changes in medically healthy pediatric patients.