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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A provisional screening instrument for four common mental disorders in adult primary care patients.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an adult self-report instrument for provisional diagnosis of four common mental disorders in primary care patients. METHODS: Primary care patients were evaluated during routine clinic visits with a self-report screening tool comprised of 85 DSM-IV symptom-based candidate questions. Patients with a physician-assessed provisional diagnosis for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive episode (MDE), past/present mania, and adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or none of these, completed additional self-report clinical questionnaires, and then were interviewed on the telephone by a trained rater for a SCID/ACDS diagnosis. Responses to the symptom-based candidate questions were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity for a SCID/ACDS diagnosis (GAD, N = 24; MDE, N = 89; Mania, N = 24; ADHD, N = 65) and to select the optimal four questions for each diagnosis to be included in the instrument. RESULTS: Analyses resulted in a 17-item instrument for provisional differential diagnosis of GAD, MDE, past/present mania, and ADHD. Comparison of limited symptom-based versus full DSM-IV criteria-based diagnosis showed minimal differences for relative diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivities and specificities, respectively, were 83% and 75% for GAD, 80% and 80% for MDE, 83% and 82% for mania, and 82%and 73% for ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this preliminary work, the Provisional Diagnostic Instrument-4 is a brief, easily scored, self-report instrument that may assist primary care physicians to identify potential cases of GAD, MDE, past/present mania, and ADHD.

Identifying patterns in treatment response profiles in acute bipolar mania: a cluster analysis approach.

UNLABELLED: Patients with acute mania respond differentially to treatment and, in many cases, fail to obtain or sustain symptom remission. The objective of this exploratory analysis was to characterize response in bipolar disorder by identifying groups of patients with similar manic symptom response profiles. METHODS: Patients (n = 222) were selected from a randomized, double-blind study of treatment with olanzapine or divalproex in bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed episode, with or without psychotic features. Hierarchical clustering based on Ward's distance was used to identify groups of patients based on Young-Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total scores at each of 5 assessments over 7 weeks. Logistic regression was used to identify baseline predictors for clusters of interest. RESULTS: Four distinct clusters of patients were identified: Cluster 1 (n = 64): patients did not maintain a response (YMRS total scores < or = 12); Cluster 2 (n = 92): patients responded rapidly (within less than a week) and response was maintained; Cluster 3 (n = 36): patients responded rapidly but relapsed soon afterwards (YMRS > or = 15); Cluster 4 (n = 30): patients responded slowly (> or = 2 weeks) and response was maintained. Predictive models using baseline variables found YMRS Item 10 (Appearance), and psychosis to be significant predictors for Clusters 1 and 4 vs. Clusters 2 and 3, but none of the baseline characteristics allowed discriminating between Clusters 1 vs. 4. Experiencing a mixed episode at baseline predicted membership in Clusters 2 and 3 vs. Clusters 1 and 4. Treatment with divalproex, larger number of previous manic episodes, lack of disruptive-aggressive behavior, and more prominent depressive symptoms at baseline were predictors for Cluster 3 vs. 2. CONCLUSION: Distinct treatment response profiles can be predicted by clinical features at baseline. The presence of these features as potential risk factors for relapse in patients who have responded to treatment should be considered prior to discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial cited in this report has not been registered because it was conducted and completed prior to the inception of clinical trial registries.

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.

Initial symptoms of manic relapse in manic or mixed-manic bipolar disorder: post hoc analysis of patients treated with olanzapine or lithium.

UNLABELLED: A post hoc analysis of Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) item scores was conducted to identify symptoms that may predict impending relapse using prospectively collected data from a double-blind, randomized relapse prevention study of patients treated with olanzapine (N=200, 5-20 mg/d) versus lithium (N=201, 300-1800 mg/d). METHODS: Relapses (YMRS > or = 15, or hospitalization) included in this analysis occurred 3-52 weeks after randomization. Repeated measures logistic regression of increases (> or = 1) in YMRS item scores prior to the visit that preceded relapse was used to estimate the odds of relapse. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients relapsed during the first 3-16 weeks of the study (olanzapine, n=12; lithium, n=19). YMRS items that increased most frequently within a 2-week period preceding relapse were (olanzapine vs. lithium, respectively): increased motor activity/energy (58.3%, 21.1%), irritability (33.3%, 31.6%), decreased need for sleep (25.0%, 10.5%), increased speech (25.0%, 10.5%), and elevated mood (25.0%, 15.8%). YMRS items with significant odds ratios (OR) that predicted relapse in patients treated with olanzapine or lithium, respectively, were: increased motor activity/energy (OR, 35.7; OR, 7.8), irritability (OR, 9.5; OR, 7.8), elevated mood (OR, 8.1; OR, 4.2), and increased sexual interest (OR, 13.7; OR, 7.7). CONCLUSIONS: Early recognition of symptom exacerbation in bipolar mania, particularly increased motor activity-energy may permit clinical interventions to help avert relapse.

Weight changes during treatment with olanzapine in older adult patients with dementia and behavioral disturbances.

Treatment-emergent weight gain has been reported in younger patients receiving atypical antipsychotics, but less is known about weight gain in adults aged 65 years and older. This was a post hoc analysis of 1267 patients with dementia and behavioral disturbances treated with olanzapine (1 to 20 mg/d) in clinical trials, most of whom were underweight (body mass index <18.5 kg/m2) or of normal weight (body mass index, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) at baseline. Weight changes over the first 20 weeks of treatment in olanzapine-treated patients, as estimated by a repeated measures analysis model, were significantly greater in the combined categories of underweight and normal weight (1.22 kg and 1.29 kg, respectively) versus overweight and obese (0.56 kg and 0.53 kg, respectively; P = .006). The estimated probability of gaining more than 7% of initial body weight was significantly greater in patients treated with olanzapine versus active comparator (P < .001) or placebo (P < .001). Weight gain in olanzapine-treated older patients with dementia and behavioral disturbances was significantly greater in individuals with a baseline body mass index of less than 25 kg/m2.

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.

Improvement in hyperprolactinemia and reproductive comorbidities in patients with schizophrenia switched from conventional antipsychotics or risperidone to olanzapine.

This open-label, prospective, 4-month study in hyperprolactinemic patients with schizophrenia explored whether prolactin levels decrease after switching antipsychotic therapy to olanzapine. A secondary objective was to determine if reproductive morbidities and sexual dysfunction occurring with hyperprolactinemia improved with prolactin normalization. Clinically stable patients with schizophrenia, who had hyperprolactinemia defined as >18.8 ng/ml for males and >24.2 ng/ml for females, were randomized to: remain on current therapy (n=27) or switch to olanzapine, 5-20 mg/day, (n=27). Baseline prolactin levels in female patients randomized to receive olanzapine (n=14) were 66.3+/-38.7 ng/ml and were 82.0+/-37.6 (p=.32) in those remaining on their pre-study antipsychotic medication (n=14). In male patients, baseline prolactin levels were 33.7+/-12.1 and 33.5+/-13.8 ng/ml (p=.97), respectively, for those randomized to olanzapine (n=13) or remaining on pre-study treatment (n=13). At study end, patients switched to olanzapine experienced significant reductions in mean serum prolactin levels of 19.8+/-18.1 ng/ml in males (p=.02), and 32.3+/-47.5 ng/ml in females (p=.01), but prolactin continued to be elevated in patients who remained on pre-study antipsychotic treatment. After switching to olanzapine treatment, male patients experienced significantly (p=.03) increased free testosterone levels but there were no significant improvements in total testosterone levels; some female patients experienced improved menstrual cycling, as well as resolution of galactorrhea and gynecomastia, and sexual functioning was significantly improved in both genders. Patients switched to olanzapine, as well as those remaining on their pre-study medication, maintained clinical stability, their symptoms continued to improve, although there were no significant between-treatment differences in improvement. Treatment-emergent adverse events did occur in both treatment groups; however, they were not significantly different between groups. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly lower eosinophil counts and higher elevations in low-density lipoproteins and standing blood pressure than non-switched patients. Olanzapine treatment may offer sustained reduction in serum prolactin and improvement in sexual and reproductive comorbid symptoms in patients with schizophrenia who have treatment-emergent hyperprolactinemia.

Reduced suicidal ideation in bipolar I disorder mixed-episode patients in a placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine combined with lithium or divalproex.

OBJECTIVE: To identify symptoms associated with suicidality in bipolar I disorder patients, and to assess suicide risk during treatment with olan-zapine in combination with lithium or divalproex. METHOD: We used data from a study (conducted from September 1997 to October 2000) in which DSM-IV bipolar I manic or mixed-episode patients who were partially responsive to at least 2 weeks of lithium or dival-proex monotherapy prior to study entry were randomly assigned to augmentation therapy with olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) or placebo. Among mixed-episode patients with residual suicidality (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-item 3 [HAM-D-3] score of 1 or above) at randomization to cotherapy, we identified items in the Young Mania Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale that correlated with HAM-D-3 scores. We used factor analysis of correlated items to identify symptom domains associated with suicidality ratings and assessed changes in symptom factors and HAM-D-3 scores during 6 weeks of combination therapy with olanzapine versus placebo. RESULTS: In 58 mixed-episode patients, mean +/- SD HAM-D-3 scores averaged 1.36 +/- 0.55 after at least 2 weeks of initial mood stabilizer monotherapy prior to study entry. Factors associated with the HAM-D-3 appeared to represent somatic discomfort, agitated depression, and psychotic features. Combination therapy with olanzapine (N = 36) versus placebo (N = 22) differentially reduced HAM-D-3 scores by 58% versus 29% (p < .05) within 1 week, and all 3 associated symptom factors within 2 weeks by averages of 31% versus 12% (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Suicidality in adult, mixed-episode, bipolar I disorder patients was associated with somatic discomfort, agitated depression, and psychosis. Overall, these findings suggest that the addition of an atypical antipsychotic-antimanic agent in some bipolar disorder patients may help to reduce suicidal ideation.

Clinical relevance of depressive symptom improvement in bipolar I depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: Gaps remain between rating scale changes obtained in a clinical trial and what those results mean in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relevance of results from a clinical trial we examined the relationship between rating scale measures and the clinicians' assessment of illness severity. METHODS: Data from a randomized double-blind 8-week study of bipolar I depression were examined post hoc in patients who received placebo (PLA, n = 355), olanzapine (n = 351) (OLZ, 5 to 20 mg/d), or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (n = 82) (OFC, 6 and 25, 6 and 50, or 12 and 50 mg/d). Principal components analysis identified related symptoms (factors) from Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item scores. Regression analysis examined baseline to endpoint changes in factor scores and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores. Mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis assessed differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: MADRS factors identified were: sadness, negative thoughts, detachment, and neurovegetative symptoms. Factor and CGI scores were significantly reduced from baseline to endpoint (LOCF) in the combination therapy group as compared with placebo (p < .01). Changes in factor scores were highly correlated (p < .001) with changes in the CGI. Over 80% of this treatment effect was attributable to indirect effects of improvements in the MADRS factors, the remaining difference could not be explained even when changes in the YMRS and HAMA scores were included in the analytical model. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in MADRS factors were closely aligned with the clinician's assessment of overall depression severity, which may suggest a high degree of clinical relevance for differences observed between treatments.

Wellness intervention for patients with serious and persistent mental illness.

INTRODUCTION: Weight gain and obesity that emerge during psychopharmacologic treatment are prevalent in persons with serious and persistent mental illness. Obesity is difficult to reverse, but behavioral programs involving diet and exercise are sometimes successful. METHOD: Patients with serious and persistent mental illness living in the community were enrolled voluntarily into the Solutions for Wellness Personalized Program. Participants completed an enrollment survey that provided information for the creation of an individualized management plan that included nutrition, exercise, stress management, and sleep improvement components. Weight, body mass index (BMI, kg/m(2)), behavior, and attitudes were assessed at baseline (enrollment) and monthly for 6 months. RESULTS: During the period of July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, 7188 patients with serious and persistent mental illness had enrolled in the program, and 83% were either overweight or obese. Follow-up survey responses taken at 6-month endpoint from finishers (N = 1422) indicated that positive changes were made in diet (91%), exercise (85%), reduced stress (93.8%), and sleep (92.9%). Significant decreases in BMI were associated with changes in diet (p = .014) and exercise (p = .035). In addition, 97% of participants reported that they were at least somewhat confident in the ability to maintain lifestyle changes, and this confidence was significantly (p < .001) associated with reaching dietary and exercise goals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients suffering from serious and persistent mental illness may benefit from participating in wellness intervention programs.

A post hoc analysis of transitioning to oral treatment with olanzapine or haloperidol after 24-hour intramuscular treatment in acutely agitated adult patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia might require treatment with IM antipsychotics, followed by a transition to oral medication. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between 24-hour IM and transitional oral dosages of 2 antipsychotic medications, olanzapine and haloperidol. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study comparing the efficacy of olanzapine, haloperidol, and placebo in acutely agitated inpatients aged > or =18 years with schizophrenia conducted at hospitals in 13 countries. Patients received 1 to 3 IM injections of olanzapine 10 mg or haloperidol 7.5 mg over 24 hours (IM phase), followed by 4 days of oral treatment with 5 to 20 mg/d of either antipsychotic (oral phase). Study patients were grouped according to which drug they received, and subgrouped based on whether they received a single or multiple IM injections. Rates of transition to lower (5-10 mg/d) versus higher (15-20 mg/d) dosages were compared within and between treatments. RESULTS: Data from 236 patients were analyzed (olanzapine, 121 patients [76 men, 45 women; mean (SD) age, 38.4 (12.2) years; mean (SD) weight, 74.9 (18.5) kg]; haloperidol, 115 patients [80 men, 35 women; mean (SD) age, 38.0 (10.2) years; mean (SD) weight, 75.4 (18.7) kg]). At the end of the IM phase, the rate of haloperidol patients who were transitioned to lower oral doses was significantly higher in the single-injection subgroup compared with the multiple-injection subgroup (P = 0.03); this difference was not found in the group receiving olanzapine. At day 4 of oral treatment, the rates of patients in the olanzapine and haloperidol groups who were transitioned to higher oral doses were significantly higher in the single-injection subgroups compared with the multiple-injection subgroups (P = 0.002 and =0.003, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this study, the proportion of agitated patients with schizophrenia who transitioned to higher dosages (15-20 mg) of olanzapine or haloperidol by day 4 of the oral switch was significantly greater in patients who were previously treated with a single IM injection of olanzapine (10 mg) or haloperidol (7.5 mg).right.

Methyl farnesoate controls adult male morphogenesis in the crayfish, Procambarus clarkii.

Adult male crayfish Procambarus clarkii exist in two morphotypes. They continue to molt as adults, switching between Form Is and Form IIs. Form Is are primary reproductive types, with large chelae and spines on the ischiopodites of the third and fourth pair of walking legs. Form IIs are non-reproductive types with smaller chelae and no spines on the ischiopodites. We investigated the hormonal control of these transitions in two ways, by eyestalk ablation and by methyl farnesoate (MF) treatments. Eyestalk ablation accelerates molting and increases MF levels in the blood. MF is a hormone that regulates both reproduction and morphogenesis. MF concentrations were determined in two ways. The hemolymph samples were extracted first, then purified, using normal phase HPLC. The fractions containing MF were collected and analyzed for MF concentration, utilizing both internal and external standards by GC/MS. The other hemolymph samples were analyzed from individual animals by HPLC. The concentrations of ecdysteroids were determined by radioimmunoassay. In the control animals, 4 out of 4 untreated Form I males molted into Form II, while 6 out of 7 Form IIs molted into Form Is. Eight of 8 ablated Form Is molted into Form IIs as expected, while 5 of 5 ablated Form IIs molted into Form IIs, instead of Form Is. MF treatment of intact animals resulted in 6 of 7 Form Is becoming Form IIs and 5 of 6 Form IIs becoming Form IIs. These results were highly significant in comparison of Form I and IIs in each treatment (eyestalk intact, eyestalk ablated and eyestalk intact with MF) by a chi square analysis, P = 0.006, P < 0.0005, and P = 0.013, respectively. MF premolt blood levels suggested that Form IIs were produced in the presence of 1.3 ng/ml MF, while Form Is result from MF levels less than 0.5 ng/ml. Since both eyestalk ablation and MF treatment resulted in the failure of Form IIs becoming Form Is, it was concluded that the control of morphogenesis of primary reproductives (Form Is) depends on a low level of MF prior to the molt, while Form IIs are formed in the presence of increased levels of MF.

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.

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.