Comparative economic evaluation of quetiapine plus lamotrigine combination vs quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid vs placebo) in patients with bipolar depression (CEQUEL).

OBJECTIVES: Although not licensed for acute bipolar depression, lamotrigine has evidence for efficacy in trials and its use is recommended in guidelines. So far there had been no prospective health economic evaluation of its use. METHODS: Cost-utility analysis of the CEQUEL trial comparing quetiapine plus lamotrigine vs quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid vs placebo in an add-on factorial design) for patients with bipolar depression (n = 201) from the health and social care perspective. Differences in costs together with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the groups were assessed over 52 weeks using a regression-based approach. RESULTS: Health-related quality of life improved substantially for all randomization groups during follow-up with no significant difference in QALYs between any of the comparisons (mean adjusted QALY difference: lamotrigine vs placebo -0.001 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.05), folic acid vs placebo 0.002 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.05)). While medication costs in the lamotrigine group were higher than in the placebo group (£647, P < 0.001), mental health community/outpatient costs were significantly lower (-£670, P < 0.001). Mean total costs were similar in the groups (-£180, P = 0.913). CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine improved clinical ratings in bipolar depression compared with placebo. This differential effect was not detected using the EQ-5D-3L. The additional cost of lamotrigine was balanced by significant savings in some other medical costs which made its use cost neutral to the health service. Compared to placebo, folic acid produced neither clinical nor significant health economic benefits. The study supports the use of lamotrigine in combination with other drugs to treat bipolar depression.

Development of a cost-effective, morphology-preserving method for DNA isolation from bulk invertebrate trap catches: Tephritid fruit flies as an exemplar.

Insect identification and preservation of voucher specimens is integral to pest diagnostic and surveillance activities; yet bulk-trapped insects are a diagnostic challenge due to high catch numbers and the susceptibility of samples to environmental damage. Many insect trap catches rely on examination of morphological characters for species identifications, which is a time consuming and highly skilled task, hence there is a need for more efficient molecular approaches. Many bulk DNA extraction methods require destructive sampling of specimens, resulting in damaged, or fully destroyed, voucher specimens. We developed an inexpensive, rapid, bulk DNA isolation method that preserves specimens as pinned vouchers to a standard that allows for post-extraction morphological examination and inclusion in insect reference collections. Our protocol was validated using a group of insects that are time-consuming to identify when trapped in large numbers-the dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae). In developing our method, we evaluated existing protocols against the following criteria: effect on morphology; suitability for large trap catches; cost; ease of handling; and application to downstream molecular diagnostic analyses such as real-time PCR and metabarcoding. We found that the optimum method for rapid isolation of DNA extraction was immersing flies in a NaOH:TE buffer at 75°C for 10 minutes, without the need for proteinase K or detergents. This HotSOAK method produced sufficient high-quality DNA whilst preserving morphological characters suitable for species-level identification with up to 20,000 flies in a sample. The lysates performed well in down-stream analyses such as loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and real-time PCR applications, while for metabarcoding PCR the lysate required an additional column purification step. Development of this method is a key step required for upscaling our capacity to accurately detect insects captured in bulk traps, whether for biodiversity, biosecurity, or pest management objectives.

Comparative evaluation of quetiapine plus lamotrigine combination versus quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid versus placebo) in bipolar depression (CEQUEL): a 2 × 2 factorial randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are a major cause of disability in bipolar disorder and there are few safe and effective treatments. The combination of lamotrigine plus quetiapine potentially offers improved outcomes for people with bipolar depression. We aimed to determine if combination therapy with quetiapine plus lamotrigine leads to greater improvement in depressive symptoms over 12 weeks than quetiapine monotherapy plus lamotrigine placebo. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group, 2 × 2 factorial trial (CEQUEL), patients with DSM-IV bipolar disorder I or II, who were aged 16 years or older, and required new treatment for a depressive episode, were enrolled from 27 sites in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an adaptive minimisation algorithm to lamotrigine or placebo and to folic acid or placebo. Participants and investigators were masked to the treatment groups. The primary outcome was improvement in depressive symptoms at 12 weeks with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-self report version 16 (QIDS-SR16). Analysis was by modified intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with EUdraCT, number 2007-004513-33. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2008, and April 27, 2012, 202 participants were randomly assigned; 101 to lamotrigine and 101 to placebo. The mean difference in QIDS-SR16 total score between the group receiving lamotrigine versus the placebo group at 12 weeks was -1·73 ([95% CI -3·57 to 0·11]; p=0·066) and at 52 weeks was -2·69 ([-4·89 to -0·49]; p=0·017). Folic acid was not superior to placebo. There was a significant interaction (p=0·028), with folic acid reducing the effectiveness of lamotrigine at 12 weeks. The mean difference on QIDS-SR16 was -4·14 ([95% CI -6·90 to -1·37]; p=0·004) for patients receiving lamotrigine without folic acid compared with 0·12 ([-2·58 to 2·82]; p=0·931) for those receiving lamotrigine and folic acid. INTERPRETATION: Addition of lamotrigine to quetiapine treatment improved outcomes. Folic acid seems to nullify the effect of lamotrigine. CEQUEL should encourage clinicians and patients to consider lamotrigine for bipolar depression, but also to be aware that concurrent folic acid might reduce its effectiveness. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.