Association of DRD2 and ANKK1 polymorphisms with prolactin increase in olanzapine-treated women.

UNLABELLED: Dopamine D2 receptors, encoded by DRD2, play a role in regulating serum prolactin concentration. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs2734842(C), rs6275(T), and rs6279(C) located within DRD2, have been shown to be associated with prolactin increase in olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC)-treated women. The present analyses seek to replicate these results and test other SNPs in DRD2 and neighboring gene ANKK1 for associations with prolactin increase in women, using data from 3 pooled studies of olanzapine, and 2 previously examined studies OFC. An ANCOVA was used to test whether change from baseline in the natural log of prolactin concentration (ln[prolactin]) was associated with SNPs in the pooled olanzapine studies. A meta-analysis was also performed using the inverse chi-square method, pooling p-values from the 2 previously examined studies and the 3 olanzapine studies. Negative strand alleles rs2734842(C), rs6275(T), and rs6279(C) were significantly associated with increased prolactin in olanzapine-treated women, replicating previous results. These SNPs also showed moderate association with increased prolactin in olanzapine-treated and OFC-treated women in the meta-analysis, as did rs4938016, rs2734848, rs2734841, rs1124493, and rs1076562. Five of these SNPs fall in or are adjacent to an LD block spanning DRD2 intron 7, exon 7, 5' untranslated region and ANKK1. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrial.gov.

Predictive value of early changes in triglycerides and weight for longer-term changes in metabolic measures during olanzapine, ziprasidone or aripiprazole treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder post hoc analyses of 3 randomized, controlled clinical trials.

The objective of this study was to determine if early changes in triglycerides and weight may be useful in predicting longer-term changes in weight and other metabolic parameters. Data were from three 24- to 28-week randomized, controlled studies comparing olanzapine to ziprasidone or aripiprazole for treatment of schizophrenia. Analyses were restricted to completers with fasting laboratory data at all protocol specified time points. Analyses were primarily descriptive and included mean changes and categorical outcomes. In all treatment groups, participants who did not experience a 20 mg/dL or greater increase in triglycerides at early time points were unlikely to experience a change of 50 mg/dL or more in triglycerides after 6 months. Negative predictive values were 83% to 95%. However, early change in triglycerides was not useful for predicting later change in glucose, cholesterol, or weight. Similarly, early weight change gave robust negative predictive values for longer-term weight change (≥10 kg), but not for change in glucose or cholesterol. Lack of early elevation in triglyceride concentrations was predictive of later lack of substantial increase in triglycerides in olanzapine-, ziprasidone-, and aripiprazole-treated participants. Lack of early elevation in weight was predictive of later lack of substantial increase in weight in all 3 treatment groups. Early monitoring of triglyceride concentrations and weight may help clinicians assess risk that individuals will experience significant increase in triglycerides or weight gain, allowing assessments of potential risks and benefits earlier in treatment. Clinical monitoring is advised throughout treatment for all patients.

Number needed to treat or harm analyses of olanzapine for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) or the number-needed-to-harm (NNH) analysis was performed on olanzapine and comparators for all known controlled clinical studies of olanzapine for bipolar maintenance treatment or relapse prevention to assess safety and efficacy. Studies compared olanzapine (n = 225) and placebo (n = 136) for 12 months, olanzapine (n = 217) and lithium (n = 214) for 12 months, and olanzapine plus lithium or valproate (n = 72) and placebo plus lithium or valproate (n = 64) for 18 months. For prevention of all-cause treatment discontinuation, the NNT was 7 to 8. For 9 of 11 efficacy and disposition measures examined, beneficial outcomes were more common with olanzapine than placebo. Beneficial outcomes were more common with olanzapine than lithium for 7 measures and more common for olanzapine plus lithium or valproate than placebo plus lithium or valproate for 1 measure. The NNHs of 5 to 8 for a weight gain of 7% or higher and 10 to 11 for the increase in body mass index category to overweight or obese during maintenance treatment indicated that these outcomes were more common for olanzapine or olanzapine plus mood stabilizers than for the comparators. All efficacy and disposition measures showing significant differences between groups for 12 to 18 months have NNTs favoring olanzapine or olanzapine plus lithium or valproate over placebo, lithium, or placebo plus lithium or valproate. However, the NNHs favor these comparators for avoidance of weight gain and of increase in body mass index category to overweight or obese. Clinicians should consider these and other potential benefits and risks in using maintenance treatments for patients with a bipolar disorder.

Olanzapine plasma concentrations after treatment with 10, 20, and 40 mg/d in patients with schizophrenia: an analysis of correlations with efficacy, weight gain, and prolactin concentration.

Objectives of the study were to evaluate the relationship between olanzapine plasma concentrations and efficacy, prolactin, and weight and to assess effects of smoking, sex, and race on the pharmacokinetic characteristics of oral olanzapine up to 40 mg/d. Patients were randomly allocated to olanzapine 10, 20, or 40 mg/d for 8 weeks. Olanzapine concentrations in 634 samples from 380 patients were analyzed. Mean sample collection time was approximately 15 hours after dose for all groups. Mean olanzapine concentrations were 19.7 +/- 11.4, 37.9 +/- 22.8, and 74.5 +/- 43.7 ng/mL for 10-, 20-, and 40-mg doses, respectively. Olanzapine concentration and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale improvement were not significantly correlated. Change in both weight and prolactin showed significant dose response. Prolactin concentration was correlated with olanzapine concentration (r = 0.46, P < 0.001). No significant correlation between olanzapine concentration and weight change was observed. Olanzapine concentrations were lower in self-reported smokers (16.5 +/- 9.6, 34.2 +/- 20.8, and 60.9 +/- 34.6 ng/mL) than in self-reported nonsmokers (25.6 +/- 12.3, 43.4 +/- 24.7, and 113.2 +/- 44.0 ng/mL) for 10-, 20-, and 40-mg doses, respectively (P

Concentrated insulins: History and critical reappraisal.

The earliest marketed insulins were crude acidic formulations with concentrations of ≤10 units/mL. Since the early 1920s, insulins have improved continually, via bioengineering, process, and chemical modifications. Today, most insulin formulations have a concentration of 100 units/mL (U100). However, more concentrated insulin formulations (200, 300, and 500 units/mL; U200, U300, and U500, respectively) are also available. There is a tendency to assume that concentrated insulins are similar, both to each other and to their U100 counterparts, but this is not always the case: two concentrated insulins, namely insulin degludec U200 and insulin lispro U200, are bioequivalent to their U100 counterparts, whereas regular human insulin U500 and insulin glargine U300 are not. The advent of these concentrated insulins offers greater opportunities to provide tailored therapy for patients; it also introduces potential confusion, and highlights the need for prescriber and patient education. Precise and accurate dedicated insulin delivery devices are also necessary for the safe use of these concentrated insulins. Although some clinicians only use concentrated insulin with obese and severely insulin-resistant patients, other patients would also benefit from the reduced injection volume associated with concentrated insulins, or the modified time-action profile of some concentrated insulins. The aim of this review is to enhance understanding of the historic development and the safe and effective use of concentrated insulins in clinical practice.

Early evaluation of patient risk for substantial weight gain during olanzapine treatment for schizophrenia, schizophreniform, or schizoaffective disorder.

BACKGROUND: To make well informed treatment decisions for their patients, clinicians need credible information about potential risk for substantial weight gain. We therefore conducted a post-hoc analysis of clinical trial data, examining early weight gain as a predictor of later substantial weight gain. METHODS: Data from 669 (Study 1) and 102 (Study 2) olanzapine-treated patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizophreniform, or schizoaffective disorder were analyzed to identify and validate weight gain cut-offs at Weeks 1-4 that were predictive of substantial weight gain (defined as an increase of > or = 5, 7, 10 kg or 7% of baseline weight) after approximately 30 weeks of treatment. Baseline characteristics alone, baseline characteristics plus weight change from baseline to Weeks 1, 2, 3 or 4, and weight change from baseline to Weeks 1, 2, 3, or 4 alone were evaluated as predictors of substantial weight gain. Similar analyses were performed to determine BMI increase cut-offs at Weeks 1-4 of treatment that were predictive of substantial increase in BMI (1, 2 or 3 kg/m2 increase from baseline). RESULTS: At Weeks 1 and 2, predictions based on early weight gain plus baseline characteristics were more robust than those based on early weight gain alone. However, by Weeks 3 and 4, there was little difference between the operating characteristics associated with these two sets of predictors. The positive predictive values ranged from 30.1% to 73.5%, while the negative predictive values ranged from 58.1% to 89.0%. Predictions based on early BMI increase plus baseline characteristics were not uniformly more robust at any time compared to those based on early BMI increase alone. The positive predictive values ranged from 38.3% to 83.5%, while negative predictive values ranged from 42.1% to 84.7%. For analyses of both early weight gain and early BMI increase, results for the validation dataset were similar to those observed in the primary dataset. CONCLUSION: Results from these analyses can be used by clinicians to evaluate risk of substantial weight gain or BMI increase for individual patients. For instance, negative predictive values based on data from these studies suggest approximately 88% of patients who gain less than 2 kg by Week 3 will gain less than 10 kg after 26-34 weeks of olanzapine treatment. Analysis of changes in BMI suggests that approximately 84% of patients who gain less than .64 kg/m2 in BMI by Week 3 will gain less than 3 kg/m2 in BMI after 26-34 weeks of olanzapine treatment. Further research in larger patient populations for longer periods is necessary to confirm these results.

Service utilization and associated direct costs for bipolar disorder in 2004: an analysis in managed care.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is a chronic and costly condition. This analysis examines health care costs associated with bipolar disorder in 2004 and contrasts them with those for depression, a better understood mental illness. METHODS: Health care costs associated with bipolar disorder and non-bipolar depression were determined using private payer administrative claims. Individuals having 2 claims with a primary ICD-9-CM code for bipolar disorder or depression were categorized as bipolar disorder or non-bipolar depression patients, respectively. Comparisons between patient groups were adjusted for demographic differences and comorbid diagnoses. RESULTS: On average, bipolar patients (n=6072) used significantly more psychiatric resources per person than depression patients (n=60,643), and had more mean psychiatric hospital days, psychiatric and medical emergency room visits, and psychiatric office visits (p<.001 for all). Bipolar patients were slightly less likely to be treated with antidepressants, but substantially more likely to be treated with antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, lithium, and benzodiazepines (p<.001 for all). Mean direct per-patient costs were $10,402 for bipolar patients and $7494 for depression patients (p<.001), with the primary differences observed for psychiatric medication ($1641 vs. $507) and psychiatric hospitalization ($1187 vs. $241). LIMITATIONS: Patients were categorized based on diagnostic codes in administrative claims data, which may not always be accurate. Results may not generalize beyond private payer populations in the US. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar disorder is associated with significantly greater per-patient total annual health care costs than non-bipolar depression, as well as significantly greater psychiatric costs. Bipolar disorder, a chronic condition often suboptimally treated, may represent a good target for disease-management programs.

The 3-year clinical and functional course of schizophrenia among individuals with and without diabetes at study entry.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective observational study compared the 3-year clinical and functional course of schizophrenia among individuals with and without diabetes at study entry. METHOD: Data were drawn from a large, 3-year, multisite, prospective, naturalistic study of treatment for schizophrenia-related disorders. The study was conducted in the United States between July 1997 and September 2003 and represented treatment practices in diverse systems of care. Participants were diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective or schizophreniform disorders based on DSM-IV criteria. Clinical and functional outcomes were assessed at study enrollment and at 12-month intervals using standard psychiatric measures, medical records, and a validated patient-reported questionnaire. Diabetes status was determined by participant interview at enrollment. Statistical analyses used mixed models with repeated measures. RESULTS: Of 594 participants queried about comorbid medical conditions at enrollment, 76 (12.8%) reported having diabetes. Other comor-bid conditions were reported by 79% of the diabetes group (N = 60) and 50% of the nondiabetes group (N = 259). Across the 3-year study, participants with diabetes differed significantly from participants without diabetes on 2 of 36 outcome measures: more contacts with nonpsychiatrist physicians (p < .001) and poorer physical health (p = .015). Groups did not differ significantly on mental health symptomatology, mental health resource utilization, legal and safety issues, substance use, productivity, activities and relationships, or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In this 3-year, prospective, naturalistic study, the course of schizophrenia did not differ significantly between participants with and without diabetes, although persons with diabetes did have poorer physical health and more contacts with nonpsychiatrist physicians. Findings highlight the need for better medical treatment for people with schizophrenia, both with and without comorbid diabetes.

Fluoxetine 40-60 mg versus fluoxetine 20 mg in the treatment of children and adolescents with a less-than-complete response to nine-week treatment with fluoxetine 10-20 mg: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare fluoxetine dosage titration to 40-60 mg/day with fixed fluoxetine 20-mg/day treatment for an additional 10 weeks in pediatric outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had not met protocol-defined response criteria after 9-week acute fluoxetine treatment. METHODS: Patients unresponsive (less than or equal to 30% decrease in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised [CDRS-R] score) after 9-week fluoxetine treatment were randomly reassigned to continue at 20 mg/day or to increase to 40 mg/day. After 4 weeks, patients unresponsive to 40 mg/day could receive 60 mg/day. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (29) patients, 9-17 years of age, received fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day (n = 14) or 20 mg/day (n = 15). At the conclusion of this study phase, 10 patients (71%) on 40-60 mg/day met the response criteria, versus 5 patients (36%) on 20 mg/day (p = 0.128). Mean CDRS-R scores improved in both treatment groups (fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day, -9.4; fluoxetine 20 mg/day, -1.5; p = 0.099). Adverse events were similar in both groups. However, this study phase was statistically underpowered for detecting differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: More than two thirds of patients whose dosage was increased responded within 10 weeks, suggesting dose escalation may benefit some patients. Approximately one third of patients unresponsive to initial treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg responded to this fixed dosage within another 10 weeks. Fluoxetine 20-60 mg/day was well tolerated.

Fluoxetine for acute treatment of depression in children and adolescents: a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This report presents results from the acute treatment phase of a clinical trial designed to confirm efficacy of a fixed dose of 20 mg of fluoxetine in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: After a 3-week screening period, 122 children and 97 adolescents with MDD ( ) were randomly assigned to placebo or fluoxetine. After a 1-week placebo lead-in, fluoxetine-treated patients received fluoxetine 10 mg/day for 1 week, then fluoxetine 20 mg/day for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Fluoxetine was associated with greater mean improvement in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) score than placebo after 1 week ( <.05) and throughout the study period. Significantly more fluoxetine-treated patients (41%) met the prospectively defined criteria for remission than did placebo-treated patients (20%) ( <.01). More fluoxetine- (65%) than placebo-treated (53%) patients met the prospectively defined response criterion of > or =30% decrease in CDRS-R score, but this difference was not significant ( =.093). Significantly more fluoxetine-than placebo-treated patients completed acute treatment ( =.001). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in discontinuations due to adverse events ( =.408). CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine 20 mg daily appears to be well tolerated and effective for acute treatment of MDD in child and adolescent outpatients. Fluoxetine is the only antidepressant that has demonstrated efficacy in two placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials of pediatric depression.

Fluoxetine treatment for prevention of relapse of depression in children and adolescents: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day with placebo for prevention of relapse of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents who had achieved Children's Depression Rating Scale, Revised scores of < or =28 during treatment with fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg. METHOD: In this 32-week relapse-prevention phase of a double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled 51-week study, 20 patients continued to receive their fixed dose of fluoxetine (F/F group), while 20 similar patients were switched to placebo (F/P group). Definition of relapse for the primary analysis was a Children's Depression Rating Scale, Revised score of >40 with a 2-week history of clinical deterioration or relapse in the opinion of the physician. Adverse events were compared between treatment groups to assess discontinuation-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: Mean time to relapse was longer in the F/F recipients than in the F/P recipients (p=.046). Relapse occurred in an estimated 34% in the F/F cohort and 60% in the F/P cohort. Incidence of adverse events and tolerability were similar in the F/F and F/P groups, suggesting that fluoxetine is not associated with significant discontinuation events. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day was well tolerated and can significantly delay relapse of major depressive disorder symptoms in children and adolescents.

Assessment of treatment algorithms including amantadine, metformin, and zonisamide for the prevention of weight gain with olanzapine: a randomized controlled open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: This 22-week, open-label study, conducted between November 2006 and September 2008 in a community setting, was designed to determine if weight gain during olanzapine treatment can be prevented or mitigated with adjunctive treatment algorithms that include amantadine, metformin, and zonisamide. METHOD: Outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (DSM-IV-TR criteria) were randomly assigned to olanzapine alone (n = 50), olanzapine plus algorithm A (olanzapine + A [amantadine 200 mg/d with possible switches to metformin 1,000-1,500 mg/d and then to zonisamide 100-400 mg/d; n = 76]), or olanzapine plus algorithm B (olanzapine + B [metformin 1,000-1,500 mg/d with possible switches to amantadine 200 mg/d and then to zonisamide 100-400 mg/d; n = 73]). Brief weight management education was provided at baseline. The primary outcome measure was comparison of mean weight gain between olanzapine and pooled olanzapine + A and olanzapine + B results. RESULTS: Least squares mean ± SE weight gain was 2.76 ± 0.75 kg for olanzapine, 2.40 ± 0.65 kg for olanzapine + A, and 0.65 ± 0.63 kg for olanzapine + B. Mean weight gain during olanzapine treatment did not differ significantly from pooled results for olanzapine + A and olanzapine + B (P = .065). Participants treated with olanzapine + B experienced significantly less mean weight gain than olanzapine-treated participants (P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled treatment algorithm results were not significantly different from olanzapine monotherapy in mitigating weight gain. However, participants who received treatment with metformin with possible progression to amantadine and then zonisamide had significantly less mean weight gain than participants treated with olanzapine alone. Progression of some participants through the algorithm indicated that a single therapy solution may not be adequate for every patient. Patients treated with olanzapine should receive regular weight monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00401973.

Potential for use of 1,5-anhydroglucitol when initiating insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal control with oral antidiabetic drugs.

Endpoint HbA(1c) <7.0% was achieved by 80 (73.4%) lispro mix 25 (LM25)-treated patients and 67 (60.9%) glargine-treated patients (p=0.027) with baseline 1,5 anhydroglucitol (1,5AG) below median and 75 (70.8%) LM25-treated patients and 72 (63.7%) glargine-treated patients (p=0.238) with 1,5AG≥median, suggesting, 1,5AG may offer therapeutic insight when starting insulin therapy.

Concomitant oral antihyperglycemic agent use and associated treatment outcomes after initiation of insulin therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% lispro) or insulin glargine therapy, stratified by baseline oral antihyperglycemic agent (OHA) use. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 6-month data from the DURABLE clinical trial, which enrolled patients with hemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels >7.0% treated with 2 or more OHAs (metformin, sulfonylurea, and thiazolidinedione), and randomly assigned them to treatment with twice-daily insulin lispro 75/25 or once-daily glargine. RESULTS: In both insulin treatment groups, metformin/thiazolidinedione-treated patients had significantly greater improvement in A1C levels (-2.19% to -2.36%), lower end point A1C values, and lower rates of occurrence of hypoglycemia in comparison with metformin/sulfonylurea-treated patients (all P<.05). Patients treated with sulfonylurea/thiazolidinedione or metformin/sulfonylurea/thiazolidinedione did not differ significantly from metformin/sulfonylurea-treated patients in A1C change (-1.56% to -1.84%) or rates of occurrence of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: In these post hoc analyses, patients with type 2 diabetes initiating premixed or basal insulin therapy and treated concomitantly with the OHA combination of metformin/thiazolidinedione at baseline demonstrated significantly greater A1C improvement with less hypoglycemia in comparison with patients treated with metformin/sulfonylurea.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of high-dose human regular U-500 insulin versus human regular U-100 insulin in healthy obese subjects.

OBJECTIVE: Human regular U-500 (U-500R) insulin (500 units/mL) is increasingly being used clinically, yet its pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) have not been well studied. Therefore, we compared PK and PD of clinically relevant doses of U-500R with the same doses of human regular U-100 (U-100R) insulin (100 units/mL). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a single-site, randomized, double-blind, crossover euglycemic clamp study. Single subcutaneous injections of 50- and 100-unit doses of U-500R and U-100R were administered to 24 healthy obese subjects. RESULTS: Both overall insulin exposure (area under the serum insulin concentration versus time curve from zero to return to baseline [AUC(0-)(t)(')]) and overall effect (total glucose infused during a clamp) were similar between formulations at both 50- and 100-unit doses (90% [CI] of ratios contained within [0.80, 1.25]). However, peak concentration and effect were significantly lower for U-500R at both doses (P < 0.05). Both formulations produced relatively long durations of action (18.3 to 21.5 h). Time-to-peak concentration and time to maximum effect were significantly longer for U-500R than U-100R at the 100-unit dose (P < 0.05). Time variables reflective of duration of action (late tR(max50), tR(last)) were prolonged for U-500R versus U-100R at both doses (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall exposure to and action of U-500R insulin after subcutaneous injection were no different from those of U-100R insulin. For U-500R, peaks of concentration and action profiles were blunted and the effect after the peak was prolonged. These findings may help guide therapy with U-500R insulin for highly insulin-resistant patients with diabetes.

Early predictors of weight gain risk during treatment with olanzapine: analysis of pooled data from 58 clinical trials.

This analysis evaluated the usefulness of different predictors in identifying patient risk of substantial weight gain (SWG) during olanzapine treatment. Data were from 58 studies with 3826 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar mania, bipolar depression, or borderline personality disorder. The primary definition for SWG was gaining >/=12% of baseline weight by endpoint (30 weeks +/-5 weeks); other definitions of SWG were also examined. Potential predictors of SWG included baseline patient characteristics, weight change, and percent weight change at Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 after olanzapine initiation. To facilitate model building and validation, the data set was randomly partitioned into training (N = 1912), validation (N = 1149), and test (N = 765) sets and 2 complementary analytic techniques were used: logistic regression with stepwise variable selection followed by receiver operating characteristic analysis for evaluation of resulting candidate models and decision trees. Approximately 24% of patients gained >/=12% of their initial weight, about 30% gained >/=10%, and 45% gained >/=7% or >/=5 kg by the 30-week endpoint. Baseline covariates significantly and positively associated with probability of SWG were lower baseline body mass index, younger age, female sex, United States residency, and African ethnicity. Early weight changes substantially improved the prediction of the risk for longer-term SWG. These results confirm that cut-offs for weight gain during the first 4 weeks of treatment may be useful in evaluating SWG risk for an individual patient.

Longer time to antipsychotic treatment discontinuation for any cause is associated with better functional outcomes for patients with schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Time to all-cause treatment discontinuation is considered a composite proxy measure of treatment efficacy, safety, and tolerability. Longer time to discontinuation of antipsychotic medication for any cause has been shown to be associated with greater symptom improvements in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study examines whether longer time to all-cause medication discontinuation is also linked to better functional outcomes. METHOD: Using pooled data from 4 randomized, double-blind antipsychotic trials of 24- to 28-weeks' duration, this study examined the association between time to all-cause treatment discontinuation and functional outcomes, as assessed by a disease-specific, clinician-rated measure (Quality of Life Scale [QLS]) and a generic, patient-reported measure (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 [SF-36]). Patients in these trials had a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. This post hoc analysis used Pearson partial correlations to assess relationships between time to treatment discontinuation and changes in functional scores, adjusting for baseline scores. Repeated measures analyses were also conducted to compare post-baseline functional outcome change over time between completers and noncompleters. RESULTS: Longer time to all-cause treatment discontinuation was found to be significantly associated with greater improvements in all assessed functional domains (p < .05). Patients who completed their respective trials (46.8%, 761/1627) experienced significantly greater improvement in functional outcome measures (in 4 QLS domains and SF-36 mental health component summary score; all, p < .001) compared to patients who discontinued for any cause. In addition, greater symptom improvement was significantly associated with greater functional improvements in assessed domains. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this post hoc analysis illustrate the importance of longer treatment duration with antipsychotics for improving functional outcomes in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia.

Linker insertion mutations in the herpes simplex virus type 1 UL28 gene: effects on UL28 interaction with UL15 and UL33 and identification of a second-site mutation in the UL15 gene that suppresses a lethal UL28 mutation.

The UL28 protein of herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) is one of seven viral proteins required for the cleavage and packaging of viral DNA. Previous results indicated that UL28 interacts with UL15 and UL33 to form a protein complex (terminase) that is presumed to cleave concatemeric DNA into genome lengths. In order to define the functional domains of UL28 that are important for DNA cleavage/packaging, we constructed a series of HSV-1 mutants with linker insertion and nonsense mutations in UL28. Insertions that blocked DNA cleavage and packaging were found to be located in two regions of UL28: the first between amino acids 200 to 400 and the second between amino acids 600 to 740. Insertions located in the N terminus or in a region located between amino acids 400 and 600 did not affect virus replication. Insertions in the carboxyl terminus of the UL28 protein were found to interfere with the interaction of UL28 with UL33. In contrast, all of the UL28 insertion mutants were found to interact with UL15 but the interaction was reduced with mutants that failed to react with UL33. Together, these observations were consistent with previous conclusions that UL15 and UL33 interact directly with UL28 but interact only indirectly with each other. Revertant viruses that formed plaques on Vero cells were detected for one of the lethal UL28 insertion mutants. DNA sequence analysis, in combination with genetic complementation assays, demonstrated that a second-site mutation in the UL15 gene restored the ability of the revertant to cleave and package viral DNA. The isolation of an intergenic suppressor mutant provides direct genetic evidence of an association between the UL28 and UL15 proteins and demonstrates that this association is essential for DNA cleavage and packaging.