Biomarker and Histopathology Evaluation of Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma Treated with Galunisertib, Lomustine, or the Combination of Galunisertib and Lomustine.

Galunisertib, a Transforming growth factor-ßRI (TGF-ßRI) kinase inhibitor, blocks TGF-ß-mediated tumor growth in glioblastoma. In a three-arm study of galunisertib (300 mg/day) monotherapy (intermittent dosing; each cycle =14 days on/14 days off), lomustine monotherapy, and galunisertib plus lomustine therapy, baseline tumor tissue was evaluated to identify markers associated with tumor stage (e.g., histopathology, Ki67, glial fibrillary acidic protein) and TGF-ß-related signaling (e.g., pSMAD2). Other pharmacodynamic assessments included chemokine, cytokine, and T cell subsets alterations. 158 patients were randomized to galunisertib plus lomustine (n = 79), galunisertib (n = 39) and placebo+lomustine (n = 40). In 127 of these patients, tissue was adequate for central pathology review and biomarker work. Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1) negative glioblastoma patients with baseline pSMAD2⁺ in cytoplasm had median overall survival (OS) 9.5 months vs. 6.9 months for patients with no tumor pSMAD2 expression (p = 0.4574). Eight patients were IDH1 R132H⁺ and had a median OS of 10.4 months compared to 6.9 months for patients with negative IDH1 R132H (p = 0.5452). IDH1 status was associated with numerically higher plasma macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC/CCL22), higher whole blood FOXP3, and reduced tumor CD3⁺ T cell counts. Compared to the baseline, treatment with galunisertib monotherapy preserved CD4⁺ T cell counts, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and the CD4/CD8 ratio. The T-regulatory cell compartment was associated with better OS with MDC/CCL22 as a prominent prognostic marker.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and biomarker evaluation of transforming growth factor-ß receptor I kinase inhibitor, galunisertib, in phase 1 study in patients with advanced cancer.

Purpose Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-ß) signaling plays a key role in epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) of tumors, including malignant glioma. Small molecule inhibitors (SMI) blocking TGF-ß signaling reverse EMT and arrest tumor progression. Several SMIs were developed, but currently only LY2157299 monohydrate (galunisertib) was advanced to clinical investigation. Design The first-in-human dose study had three parts (Part A, dose escalation, n = 39; Part B, safety combination with lomustine, n = 26; Part C, relative bioavailability study, n = 14). Results A preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model predicted a therapeutic window up to 300 mg/day and was confirmed in Part A after continuous PK/PD. PK was not affected by co-medications such as enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic drugs or proton pump inhibitors. Changes in pSMAD2 levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were associated with exposure indicating target-related pharmacological activity of galunisertib. Twelve (12/79; 15%) patients with refractory/relapsed malignant glioma had durable stable disease (SD) for 6 or more cycles, partial responses (PR), or complete responses (CR). These patients with clinical benefit had high plasma baseline levels of MDC/CCL22 and low protein expression of pSMAD2 in their tumors. Of the 5 patients with IDH1/2 mutation, 4 patients had a clinical benefit as defined by CR/PR and SD ≥6 cycles. Galunisertib had a favorable toxicity profile and no cardiac adverse events. Conclusion Based on the PK, PD, and biomarker evaluations, the intermittent administration of galunisertib at 300 mg/day is safe for future clinical investigation.

A phase I safety study of enzastaurin plus bortezomib in the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and identify the recommended doses of enzastaurin and bortezomib in combination for future Phase II studies in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Three dose levels (DLs) of oral enzastaurin and intravenous bortezomib were used according to a conventional "3 + 3" design. A loading dose of enzastaurin (250 mg twice/day [BID]) on Day 1 was followed by enzastaurin 125 mg BID for 1 week, after which bortezomib was added (Cycle 1, 28 days, 1.0 mg/m(2) : Days 8, 11, 15, and 18; seven subsequent 21-day cycles, 1.3 mg/m(2) : Days 1, 4, 8, and 11). Twenty-three patients received treatment; all patients received prior systemic therapy. Most patients received ≥3 regimens; 17 patients were bortezomib-refractory. A median of four treatment cycles (range 1-24) was completed. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed; thus, DL 3 was the recommended Phase II dose. The most common drug-related Grade 3/4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (n = 6) and anemia (n = 2). No patients died on therapy. One patient (DL 1) achieved a very good partial response; three patients (DLs 2 and 3), a partial response; nine patients, stable disease; and four patients, progressive disease. The recommended Phase II doses in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma are as follows: enzastaurin loading dose of 375 mg three times/day on Day 1 followed by 250 mg BID, with bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 21-day cycle. The combination was well-tolerated and demonstrated some antimyeloma activity.

Functional impairment related to painful physical symptoms in patients with generalized anxiety disorder with or without comorbid major depressive disorder: post hoc analysis of a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is the most frequent anxiety disorder in primary care patients. It is known that painful physical symptoms (PPS) are associated with GAD, regardless the presence of comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD). However the specific role of such symptoms in patients' functional impairment is not well understood. The objective of the present study is to assess functional impairment related to the presence of PPS in patients with GAD. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a cross-sectional study. Functioning, in the presence (overall pain score >30; Visual Analog Scale) or absence of PPS, was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in three groups of patients; 1) GAD and comorbid MDD (GAD+MDD+), 2) GAD without comorbid MDD (GAD+MDD-), 3) controls (GAD-MDD-). ANCOVA models were used. RESULTS: Of those patients with GAD+MDD+ (n = 559), 436 (78.0%) had PPS, compared with GAD+MDD- (249 of 422, 59%) and controls (95 of 336, 28.3%). Functioning worsened in both GAD groups in presence of PPS (SDS least squares mean total score: 16.1 vs. 9.8, p < 0.0001, GAD+MDD+; 14.3 vs. 8.2, p < 0.0001, GAD+MDD-). The presence of PPS was significantly associated with less productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Functional impairment related to the presence of PPS was relevant. Clinical implications should be considered.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: This was a 13-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients meeting American College of Rheumatology clinical and radiographic criteria for osteoarthritis of the knee. At baseline, patients were required to have a ≥ 4 weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain ratings. Patients were randomized to either duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD) or placebo. At week 7, the duloxetine dosage was increased, in a blinded fashion, to 120-mg QD in patients reporting < 30% pain reduction. The primary efficacy measure was Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24-hour average pain. Secondary efficacy measures included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (CGI-S). Safety and tolerability was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the total (n = 256) patients, 111 (86.7%) in placebo group and 93 (72.7%) in duloxetine group completed the study. Patients treated with duloxetine had significantly (P ≤ 0.001) greater improvement at all time points on BPI average pain and had significantly greater improvement on BPI pain severity ratings (P ≤ 0.05), WOMAC total (P = 0.044) and physical functioning scores (P = 0.016), and CGI-S (P = 0.009) at the study endpoint. Frequency of treatment-emergent nausea, constipation, and hyperhidrosis were significantly higher in the duloxetine group (P ≤ 0.05). Significantly more duloxetine-treated patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with duloxetine 60 mg to 120 mg QD was associated with significant pain reduction and improved function in patients with pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee.

Microsomal Ca2+ flux modulation as an indicator of heavy metal toxicity.

Inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphatee (IP3), an intracellular messenger, releases Ca2+ from microsomes. Ca2+ plays a major role in regulating various cellular events like neural transmission and regulation of hormones and growth factors. Aluminum (Al), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) were reported to alter Ca(2+)-regulated events thereby causing neurotoxicity. Hence, an attempt was made characterize IP3 mediated Ca2+ release from rat brain microsomes under the influence of Al, Pb and Hg. Different concentrations of metals were tested over a designated time scale and their effects on IP3 mediated Ca2+ release from microsomes were monitored using Fura-2 technique. All the three metals inhibited IP3 mediated Ca2+ release, Pb being more potent. The order of potency of these three metals was Pb>Hg>Al. Except for Al, both Hg and Pb independently released Ca2+ from microsomes. Re-uptake of Ca2+ into microsomes was inhibited by all the three metals, Pb being more potent. Microsomal Ca(2+)-ATPase activity was also inhibited by all the three metals. These results suggest that neurotoxicity exerted by Al, Pb and Hg may be due to the interference of these metals with IP3 mediated calcium release and also interfering with the microsomal Ca2+ sequestration mechanism. Differential effects of heavy metal induced changes in Ca2+ flux can be used as an index of relative toxicity.

Evaluating the maintenance of effect of duloxetine in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the maintenance of effect of duloxetine 60 mg QD over 26 weeks in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). METHODS: Adult patients with DPNP and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24-h average pain >or=4 were treated in this open-label study with duloxetine 60 mg QD for 8 weeks. Responders (>or=30% pain reduction) continued on duloxetine 60 mg QD (maintenance arm) for 26 weeks while non-responders had duloxetine increased to 120 mg QD (rescue arm). The primary outcome measure was the mean change from baseline (Week 8) to endpoint (Week 34) in BPI average pain in the maintenance arm. A number of secondary efficacy measures, as well as safety and tolerability, were assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen patients entered the study and their baseline BPI average pain was 5.9. Thirty-two patients (15%) discontinued during the acute phase. One hundred and fifteen (53%) patients were found to be responders to 60 mg dose and they entered the maintenance arm. During the maintenance period they reported a mean change of BPI average pain of 0.35, with 0.79 as the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI, which was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 (p < 0.001). Non-responders, upon dose increase to 120 mg QD, reported a statistically significant pain reduction. Total of 119 patients completed either arm of the study. Twenty patients experienced 27 serious adverse events including one death. CONCLUSION: In this open-label study, the effect of duloxetine 60 mg QD in patients with DPNP was maintained over 6-month period.

Switching to duloxetine in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor non- and partial-responders: effects on painful physical symptoms of depression.

Painful physical symptoms (PPS) are common in patients with depression. Our objective was to evaluate the presence of PPS in a sample of SSRI non- or partial-responders with MDD and examine the effect of a switch to duloxetine on those PPS. Outpatients who met criteria for MDD despite having taken an SSRI antidepressant for at least 6 weeks, and who had a Hamilton depression rating scale total score of at least 15 and a clinical global impression of severity score of at least 3, were randomized to switch to duloxetine by either a direct switch or a start-taper switch method. PPS were assessed at baseline and at the study endpoint using various measures including six visual analog scales (VAS) for pain (overall pain, headache, back pain, shoulder pain, interference with daily activities, and time in pain while awake), the pain subscale of the symptom questionnaire-somatic subscale, and the bodily pain subscale of the short form-36 item health survey. Clinically significant levels of pain (mean baseline VAS scores >30 mm) were seen across all VAS pain measures prior to switching. Switch to duloxetine was associated with significant improvements on all pain measures regardless of switch method, and there was evidence for an earlier reduction in pain in the start-taper switch group. In summary, MDD patients who were non- or partial-responders to SSRI treatment were found to have clinically significant pain which improved significantly following switch to duloxetine regardless of the switch method utilized.

Patient-assessed versus physician-assessed disease severity and outcome in patients with nonspecific pain associated with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVES: This post hoc analysis compared how patients and physicians estimate disease severity and global improvement during 8 weeks of treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) with associated nonspecific pain. In addition, predictors of pain and depression were identified. METHOD: Data were derived from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, European study (conducted from May 2005 to May 2006) in adult outpatients with MDD (DSM-IV criteria) and moderate pain not attributable to a diagnosed organic pain syndrome (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF] average pain score ≥ 3). Patients were randomly assigned to duloxetine 60 mg/day or placebo and treated for 8 weeks. Physicians were asked to rate severity of depression by using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Patients were asked to assess pain using the BPI-SF, psychological symptomatology (9 domains including depression) with the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), and overall improvement with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Multivariate linear regressions were performed as post hoc analyses to identify predictors of disease assessment at baseline and at the end of the study using a last-observation-carried-forward approach. RESULTS: All SCL-90-R domains improved during the 8 weeks of treatment. At baseline, the MADRS was associated only with the SCL-90-R obsessive-compulsive score, while the SCL-90-R depression score was associated with the BPI-SF average pain score and with many SCL-90-R subscores. The global impression of improvement was rated higher by the physicians than by the patients. At the end of the study, CGI-I was significantly associated with a decrease in depression severity (MADRS; p < .0001), younger age (p = .0005), and a decrease of the SCL-90-R interpersonal sensitivity score (p = .0359), but not with BPI-SF average pain. In contrast, patient-rated PGI-I was significantly associated with the SCL-90-R depressive domain (p < .0001), BPI-SF average pain (p = .0003), and the SCL-90-R anxiety domain (p = .0041) scores. CONCLUSION: In patients with MDD associated with at least moderate nonspecific pain, physicians consider mainly the change in depressive symptoms as measured by MADRS in their CGI-I ratings, while patients also consider pain, depression, and anxiety in their PGI-I ratings. When treating depression and assessing treatment outcome, a broad spectrum of symptoms needs to be monitored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00191919.

Hepatic events associated with atomoxetine treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes and assesses potential hepatobiliary events related to atomoxetine therapy, as reported in clinical trials and as spontaneous adverse event reports post-launch in 2002. METHODS: Case reports that contained potential hepatobiliary events were identified by a computerized search of the Eli Lilly and Company atomoxetine spontaneous adverse events and clinical trials databases. All cases were reviewed by at least two company physicians, one with expertise in hepatology, to determine the relevance of the information in respect of potential liver toxicity. RESULTS: Of 7961 paediatric and adult patients treated with atomoxetine in clinical trials, 41 were identified as having hepatobiliary events requiring additional analysis. Most of these events were mild increases in ALT and AST levels. None of these cases met Hy's rule criteria or progressed to liver failure. During the 4 years after market launch, 351 spontaneous reports of adverse events were related to the liver, of which 69 had other explanations unrelated to atomoxetine. Of the remaining 282 cases, 133 contained possible confounding factors (and were deemed to be possibly related), 146 presented too little information to assess, and three suggested atomoxetine as a probable cause of liver injuries. One of the three had a positive rechallenge. All three patients recovered after discontinuation of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Since the launch of atomoxetine therapy, three spontaneously reported cases of reversible drug-induced liver injury were deemed probably related to it. Atomoxetine should be discontinued in patients with jaundice or laboratory evidence of liver injury and should not be restarted.

Meta-analysis of suicide-related behavior events in patients treated with atomoxetine.

OBJECTIVE: The present work examined suicide-related events in acute, double-blind, and placebo- or active comparator-controlled trials with atomoxetine. METHOD: Fourteen trials in pediatric patients were included. Potential events were identified in the adverse events database using a text-string search. Potential suicide-related events were categorized according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration-defined codes using blinded patient summaries. The meta-analyses used the Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio methods. RESULTS: No patient in atomoxetine attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) trials committed suicide. The frequency of suicidal ideation was 0.37% (5/1357) in pediatric patients taking atomoxetine versus 0% (0/851) for the placebo group; Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference of 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.09-0.83; p =.016) and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence interval 0.63-13.57; p =.172). Frequencies of suicide-related events in pediatric patients with ADHD did not differ between methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatments (Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference of -0.12 (95% confidence interval -0.62 to 0.38; p =.649). The number needed to harm in pediatric patients for an additional suicide-related event is 227 compared to the number needed to treat of five to achieve remission of ADHD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Although uncommon, suicidal ideation was significantly more frequent in pediatric ADHD patients treated with atomoxetine compared to those treated with placebo. Retrospective analysis has limitations in ascertaining intent.

Clinical evidence for serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition of duloxetine.

Most antidepressants in clinical use are believed to function by enhancing neurotransmission of serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)] and/or norepinephrine (NE) via inhibition of neurotransmitter reuptake. Agents that affect reuptake of both 5-HT and NE (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) have been postulated to offer greater efficacy for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). These dual-acting agents also display a broader spectrum of action, including efficacy for MDD and associated painful physical symptoms, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder, and fibromyalgia syndrome. Substantial preclinical evidence shows that duloxetine, an approved drug for the treatment of MDD, generalized anxiety disorder, and the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, inhibits reuptake of both 5-HT and NE. This paper reviews clinical and neurochemical evidence of duloxetine's effects on 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibition. The clinical evidence supporting duloxetine's effects on NE reuptake inhibition includes indirect measures such as altered excretion of NE metabolites, cardiovascular effects, and treatment-emergent adverse event profiles similar to those for other drugs believed to act through the inhibition of NE reuptake. In summary, the data presented in this report provide clinical evidence of a mechanism for duloxetine involving both 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibition in humans and are consistent with preclinical evidence for 5-HT/NE reuptake inhibition.

The significance of treating somatic symptoms on functional outcome improvement in patients with major depressive disorder: a post hoc analysis of 2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment is associated with major depressive disorder (MDD), and patients with MDD often present with somatic symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships between improved global functioning and core depressive symptoms as well as painful and nonpainful somatic symptoms in patients with MDD. METHOD: This post hoc analysis of 2 identical trials compared the efficacy of duloxetine with that of paroxetine or placebo as treatment of MDD. In the trials, patients with DSM-IV-defined MDD received duloxetine 80 mg/day (N = 188), duloxetine 120 mg/day (N = 196), paroxetine 20 mg/day (N = 183), or placebo (N = 192) for 8 weeks. The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Maier subscale of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, 21-item Somatic Symptom Inventory, and Visual Analog Scale for overall pain were used to measure functional impairment, core symptoms of depression, and nonpainful and painful somatic symptoms, respectively. Baseline-to-endpoint mean changes in SDS total and subdomains were measured using analysis of variance with last-observation-carried-forward Pearson partial correlations, and path analysis was used to assess the significance of associations and relative contributions of improvement in global functional impairment, depression, and somatic symptoms. The trials were conducted from November 2000 to July 2002. RESULTS: The difference between antidepressant treatment and placebo in SDS total and subdomains was significant (p < .001). At baseline and in change from baseline to endpoint, associations between global functional impairment and core depressive and somatic symptoms were all significant (p < .05). Path analysis demonstrated improvement of functional impairment attributed to treatment effect as 37.0% (core depressive symptoms), 13.0% (nonpainful somatic symptoms), and 11.0% (painful somatic symptoms). CONCLUSION: In patients with MDD, over a third of functional improvement associated with antidepressant therapy was mediated through improvement in core depressive symptoms. In addition, a significant proportion of functional improvement, although to a lesser degree, was associated with the treatment of both nonpainful and painful somatic symptoms.

Preclinical assessment of galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate), a first-in-class transforming growth factor-ß receptor type I inhibitor.

Transforming growth factor-ß (TGFß) is an important driver of tumor growth via intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms, and is therefore an attractive target for developing cancer therapeutics. Using preclinical models, we characterized the anti-tumor activity of a small molecule inhibitor of TGFß receptor I (TGFßRI), galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate). Galunisertib demonstrated potent and selective inhibition of TGFßRI with corresponding inhibition of downstream signaling via inhibition of SMAD phosphorylation (pSMAD). Galunisertib also inhibited TGFß-induced pSMAD in vivo, which enabled a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile in Calu6 and EMT6-LM2 tumors. Galunisertib demonstrated anti-tumor activity including inhibition of tumor cell migration and mesenchymal phenotype, reversal of TGFß-mediated immune-suppression, and tumor growth delay. A concentration-effect relationship was established with a dosing schedule to achieve the optimal level of target modulation. Finally, a rat model demonstrated a correlation between galunisertib-dependent inhibition of pSMAD in tumor tissues and in PBMCs, supporting the use of PBMCs for assessing pharmacodynamic effects. Galunisertib has been tested in several clinical studies with evidence of anti-tumor activity observed in subsets of patients. Here, we demonstrate that galunisertib inhibits a number of TGFß-dependent functions leading to anti-tumor activity. The enhanced understanding of galunisertib provides rationale for further informed clinical development of TGFß pathway inhibitors.

Use of effect size to determine optimal dose of duloxetine in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: At effective doses, patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with duloxetine have been found to experience significant symptom improvement as measured by HAMD(17) total score. In addition, duloxetine-treated patients have significantly higher remission and response rates compared with placebo. The objective of this analysis is to determine the optimal dose of duloxetine in MDD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Effect size for duloxetine 40mg, 60mg, 80mg, and 120mg per day were estimated using all 6 acute phase III clinical trials in patients with MDD. The tolerability of duloxetine 40mg, 60mg, 80mg, and 120mg were evaluated using pooled data from the 6 studies. The primary efficacy measure in all trials was the HAMD(17) total score, from which were determined the effect size for HAMD(17) change scores, response rates (50% reduction from baseline to endpoint), and remission rates (HAMD(17) total score < or =7). RESULTS: A total of 1619 randomized patients were included in these studies, of which 632 were treated with placebo; 177 with duloxetine 40mg/day; 251 with 60mg/day; 363 with 80mg/day; and 196 with 120mg/day. An evaluation of increments in effect size between doses consistently showed that the most notable gain in effect size for efficacy was the 40-60mg/day dosage range. All dosages from 60 to 120mg were effective. The tolerability assessment indicated duloxetine at 40-120mg/day is well tolerated. Furthermore, the initial doses of 40-80mg/day were found to have comparable tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: The effect size analyses demonstrate that duloxetine 40mg has minimum efficacy, and that duloxetine 60-120mg/day is effective in the treatment of patients with MDD. An initial dose less than 60mg/day might provide better tolerability for some patients diagnosed with MDD.

Duloxetine for the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: evidence-based findings from post hoc analysis of three multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis was aimed to summarize the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine as represented by number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) to provide a clinically useful assessment of the position of duloxetine among current agents used to treat diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). METHODS: Data were pooled from three 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in which patients received 60 mg duloxetine either QD or BID or placebo. NNT was calculated based on rates of response (defined as >or=30% and >or=50% reductions from baseline in the weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain severity scores); NNH was calculated based on rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Patients receiving duloxetine 60 mg QD and 60 mg BID had NNTs (95% CI) of 5.2 (3.8-8.3) and 4.9 (3.6-7.6), respectively, based on last observation carried forward; NNTs of 5.3 (3.8-8.3) for 60 mg QD and 5.7 (4.1-9.7) for 60 mg BID were obtained based on baseline observations carried forward. The NNHs (95% CI) based on discontinuation due to AEs were 17.5 (10.2-58.8) in the duloxetine 60-mg QD group and 8.8 (6.3-14.7) in the 60-mg BID group. CONCLUSION: These post hoc results suggest that duloxetine was effective and well tolerated for the management of DPNP and further support the importance of duloxetine as a treatment option for clinicians and patients to assist with the management of DPNP.

Duloxetine in practice-based clinical settings: assessing effects on the emotional and physical symptoms of depression in an open-label, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: In placebo-controlled clinical trials, duloxetine has been shown to be effective and well-tolerated in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, patients in registration trials may not be representative of patients in clinical practice. This study sought to assess the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of duloxetine in diverse populations of outpatients with MDD. METHOD: This open-label study recruited out-patients ≥ 18 years of age with DSM-IV MDD in primary care or psychiatric practice settings and treated them with duloxetine 60 mg q.d. for 7 weeks. Primary outcome measures were (1) the physicianrated Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, (2) the patient-rated 28-item Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI-28) average, and (3) the patient-rated 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report. Quality of life, disability, and vital signs also were assessed. The first patient visit was August 16, 2004. The last patient visit was January 7, 2005. RESULTS: Of 3543 outpatients enrolled, 3431 received at least 1 dose of duloxetine, of whom 71.4% completed the study. Most patients were Caucasian (90.8%) and female (75.4%); mean age was 48 years. Duloxetine significantly (p < .001) improved all efficacy measures in all treated patients as well as in subgroups based on gender, ethnic origin, age, and patient care setting. Except for the SSI-28 average, all the efficacy measures were in favor of female gender and primary care subgroups. Overall, 10.8% of patients discontinued due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine 60 mg q.d. was effective, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, age, and patient care settings, in this 7-week open-label study and was well-tolerated in a diverse population of outpatients with MDD. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00479726.

Effect of teriparatide [rhPTH(1-34)] on BMD when given to postmenopausal women receiving hormone replacement therapy.

UNLABELLED: The effects of teriparatide when given in combination with HRT were studied in postmenopausal women with low bone mass or osteoporosis. The data provide evidence that the adverse event profile for combination therapy with teriparatide + HRT together is consistent with that expected for each treatment alone and that the BMD response is greater than for HRT alone. INTRODUCTION: Teriparatide [rhPTH(1-34)], given as a once-daily injection, activates new bone formation in patients with osteoporosis. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) prevents osteoporosis by reducing bone resorption and formation. Combination therapy with these two compounds, in small clinical trials, increased BMD and reduced vertebral fracture burden. The purpose of this study was to determine whether teriparatide provided additional effect on BMD when given in combination with HRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in postmenopausal women with either low bone mass or osteoporosis. Patients were randomized to placebo subcutaneous plus HRT (n = 125) or teriparatide 40 microg/day (SC) plus HRT (TPTD40 + HRT; n = 122) for a median treatment exposure of 13.8 months. Approximately one-half of the patients in each group were pretreated with HRT for at least 12 months before randomization. Patients received 1000 mg calcium and 400-1200 IU of vitamin D daily as oral supplementation. BMD was measured by DXA. RESULTS: Compared with HRT alone, TPTD40 + HRT produced significant (p < 0.001) increases in spine BMD (14% versus 3%), total hip (5.2% versus 1.6%), and femoral neck (5.2% versus 2%) at study endpoint. BMD, in whole body and ultradistal radius, was higher, and in the one-third distal radius was lower, in the combination therapy but not in the HRT group. Serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and urinary N-telopeptide/Cr were increased significantly (p < 0.01) in the women receiving TPTD40 + HRT compared with HRT. A similar profile of BMD and bone markers was evident in both randomized patients as well as in subgroups of patients not pretreated or pretreated with HRT. Patients tolerated both the treatments well. Nausea and leg cramps were more frequently reported in the TPTD40 + HRT group. CONCLUSIONS: Adding teriparatide, a bone formation agent, to HRT, an antiresorptive agent, provides additional increases in BMD beyond that provided by HRT alone. The adverse effects of teriparatide when added to HRT were similar to the adverse effects described for teriparatide administered alone. Whether teriparatide was initiated at the same time as HRT or after at least 1 year on HRT, the incremental increases over HRT alone were similar.

Safety and efficacy of teriparatide in elderly women with established osteoporosis: bone anabolic therapy from a geriatric perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in patients aged 75 and older and compare these findings with those of women younger than 75 using data from the Fracture Prevention Trial (FPT). DESIGN: The FPT was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: The FPT multicenter international study. PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal women aged 42 to 86 were randomized to placebo (N=544) or teriparatide 20 mug (N=541) by daily self-injection for a median of 19 months. Patients received daily oral supplements of 1,000 mg calcium and 400 to 1,200 IU vitamin D. For this analysis, subgroups were defined according to patient age younger than 75 (N=841) and 75 and older (N=244). MEASUREMENTS: The effects of teriparatide on bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine and femoral neck; the incidence of new vertebral and new nonvertebral fragility fractures; bone turnover markers, including bone-specific alkaline phosphatase; and urinary deoxypyridinoline corrected for creatinine clearance, as well as the safety of teriparatide, were investigated. RESULTS: There were no significant treatment-by-age interactions for the bone turnover markers, femoral neck BMD, vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fragility fractures, height loss, hyperuricemia, or hypercalcemia. A significant treatment-by-age interaction for lumbar spine BMD (P=.08) was due to an increase in BMD observed in the placebo group aged 75 and older. There were no treatment-by-age interactions for important treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including back pain, nausea, leg cramps, and dizziness. The most important TEAEs in women aged 80 and older (23 patients from the placebo group and 25 patients from the teriparatide group) were also reviewed; no unexpected TEAEs were found in the patients treated with teriparatide. These results indicate that the clinical effects of teriparatide were consistent in the older and younger women. CONCLUSION: Age does not affect the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Treatment benefits of duloxetine in major depressive disorder as assessed by number needed to treat.

The efficacy of an antidepressant typically is assessed by comparing it with placebo using a validated rating scale. This type of analysis, however, does not translate well to the clinical settings. For clinicians, a more meaningful measure is the number needed to treat (NNT). The objective of this analysis is to assess the efficacy of duloxetine in terms of NNT. Data were obtained from nine clinical trials designed to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine as a treatment for major depressive disorder. These studies examined 8-9 weeks of acute treatment with duloxetine. NNT estimates were determined for duloxetine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor comparators from six multi-dose studies, and for duloxetine in patients > or =65 years of age. The NNT was based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) for response and remission, and improvements defined by the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) were estimated and compared. The NNT was favorable for both duloxetine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor compared with placebo. The patients receiving duloxetine had NNT for HAMD17 response of 6.0, remission 7-9, and CGI-defined improvement 6-7 by 8 weeks. The NNTs for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine or paroxetine, 20 mg/day) were around 7 for response, 11 for remission, and 8 for CGI-defined improvement. The NNTs in the elderly were similar. The NNT for several measures of efficacy including remission consistently demonstrated the treatment benefits of duloxetine as well as of fluoxetine and paroxetine compared with placebo.