Ixekizumab treatment of biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 3-year results from a phase III clinical trial (SPIRIT-P1).

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to 156 weeks of ixekizumab (an IL-17A antagonist) treatment in PsA patients. METHODS: In a phase III study, patients naïve to biologic treatment were randomized to placebo, adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (ADA; active reference) or ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) or every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) after an initial dose of 160 mg. At week 24 (week 16 for inadequate responders), ADA (after 8-week washout) and placebo patients were re-randomized to IXEQ2W or IXEQ4W. Outcomes were evaluated using a modified non-responder imputation [linear extrapolation for radiographic progression (modified total Sharp score = 0)] during extended treatment until week 156. RESULTS: Of 417 patients, 381 entered the extension, and 243 of 381 (63.8%) completed the 156-week study. Incidence rates of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events, respectively, were 38.0 and 5.2 with IXEQ2W (n = 189) and 38.1 and 8.0 with IXEQ4W (n = 197). One death occurred (IXEQ4W). With IXEQ2W and IXEQ4W, respectively, the response rates persisted to week 156 as measured by the ACR response ≥20% (62.5 and 69.8%), ≥50% (56.1 and 51.8%) and ≥70% (43.8 and 33.4%), psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 (69.1 and 63.5%), PASI 90 (64.5 and 51.2%) and PASI 100 (60.5 and 43.6%). Inhibition of radiographic progression also persisted to week 156 in 61% of IXEQ2W and 71% of IXEQ4W patients. CONCLUSION: In this 156-week study of ixekizumab, the safety profile remained consistent with previous reports, and improvements in signs and symptoms of PsA were observed, including persistent low rates of radiographic progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01695239, EudraCT 2011-002326-49.

Ixekizumab Results in Persistent Clinical Improvement in Moderate-to-Severe Genital Psoriasis During a 52 Week, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

Ixekizumab was efficacious in treating moderate-to-severe genital psoriasis over 12 weeks. We evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of ixekizumab for up to 52 weeks. Patients were randomized to 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 weeks or to placebo through Week 12, then received 80 mg open-label ixekizumab every 4 weeks through Week 52. In patients initially randomized to ixekizumab, clear or almost clear genital skin was achieved for 73% of patients at Week 12 and 75% at Week 52. Persistent improvements were also observed for overall psoriasis, genital itch, and the impact of genital psoriasis on the frequency of sexual activity. The safety profile was consistent with studies of ixekizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Ixekizumab provided rapid and persistent improvements in the signs and symptoms of genital psoriasis for up to 52 weeks of treatment.

Phase 3 Trials of Ixekizumab in Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Two phase 3 trials (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3) showed that at 12 weeks of treatment, ixekizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-17A, was superior to placebo and etanercept in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. We report the 60-week data from the UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 trials, as well as 12-week and 60-week data from a third phase 3 trial, UNCOVER-1. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1296 patients in the UNCOVER-1 trial, 1224 patients in the UNCOVER-2 trial, and 1346 patients in the UNCOVER-3 trial to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo (placebo group), 80 mg of ixekizumab every 2 weeks after a starting dose of 160 mg (2-wk dosing group), or 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks after a starting dose of 160 mg (4-wk dosing group). Additional cohorts in the UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 trials were randomly assigned to receive 50 mg of etanercept twice weekly. At week 12 in the UNCOVER-3 trial, the patients entered a long-term extension period during which they received 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks through week 60; at week 12 in the UNCOVER-1 and UNCOVER-2 trials, the patients who had a response to ixekizumab (defined as a static Physicians Global Assessment [sPGA] score of 0 [clear] or 1 [minimal psoriasis]) were randomly reassigned to receive placebo, 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks, or 80 mg of ixekizumab every 12 weeks through week 60. Coprimary end points were the percentage of patients who had a score on the sPGA of 0 or 1 and a 75% or greater reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at week 12. RESULTS: In the UNCOVER-1 trial, at week 12, the patients had better responses to ixekizumab than to placebo; in the 2-wk dosing group, 81.8% had an sPGA score of 0 or 1 and 89.1% had a PASI 75 response; in the 4-wk dosing group, the respective rates were 76.4% and 82.6%; and in the placebo group, the rates were 3.2% and 3.9% (P<0.001 for all comparisons of ixekizumab with placebo). In the UNCOVER-1 and UNCOVER-2 trials, among the patients who were randomly reassigned at week 12 to receive 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks, 80 mg of ixekizumab every 12 weeks, or placebo, an sPGA score of 0 or 1 was maintained by 73.8%, 39.0%, and 7.0% of the patients, respectively. Patients in the UNCOVER-3 trial received continuous treatment of ixekizumab from weeks 0 through 60, and at week 60, at least 73% had an sPGA score of 0 or 1 and at least 80% had a PASI 75 response. Adverse events reported during ixekizumab use included neutropenia, candidal infections, and inflammatory bowel disease. CONCLUSIONS: In three phase 3 trials involving patients with psoriasis, ixekizumab was effective through 60 weeks of treatment. As with any treatment, the benefits need to be weighed against the risks of adverse events. The efficacy and safety of ixekizumab beyond 60 weeks of treatment are not yet known. (Funded by Eli Lilly; UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT01474512, NCT01597245, and NCT01646177, respectively.).

Points to consider for analyzing efficacy outcomes in long-term extension clinical trials.

This article focuses on 2 objectives in the analysis of efficacy in long-term extension studies of chronic diseases: (1) defining and discussing estimands of interest in such studies and (2) evaluating the performance of several multiple imputation methods that may be useful in estimating some of these estimands. Specifically, 4 estimands are defined and their clinical utility and inferential ramifications discussed. The performance of several multiple imputation methods and approaches were evaluated using simulated data. Results suggested that when interest is in a binary outcome derived from an underlying continuous measurement, it is preferable to impute the underlying continuous value that is subsequently dichotomized rather than to directly impute the binary outcome. Results also demonstrated that multivariate Gaussian models with Markov chain Monte Carlo imputation and sequential regression have minimal bias and the anticipated confidence interval coverage, even in settings with ordinal data where departures from normality are a concern. These approaches are further illustrated using a long-term extension study in psoriasis.

Comparison of ixekizumab with etanercept or placebo in moderate-to-severe psoriasis (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3): results from two phase 3 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Ixekizumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody against the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin 17A. We report two studies of ixekizumab compared with placebo or etanercept to assess the safety and efficacy of specifically targeting interleukin 17A in patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis. METHODS: In two prospective, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 studies (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3), eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a confirmed diagnosis of chronic plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before baseline (randomisation), 10% or greater body-surface area involvement at both screening and baseline visits, at least a moderate clinical severity as measured by a static physician global assessment (sPGA) score of 3 or more, and a psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score of 12. Participants were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2) by computer-generated random sequence with an interactive voice response system to receive subcutaneous placebo, etanercept (50 mg twice weekly), or one injection of 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 weeks, or every 4 weeks after a 160 mg starting dose. Blinding was maintained with a double-dummy design. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients achieving sPGA score 0 or 1 and 75% or greater improvement in PASI at week 12. Analysis was by intention to treat. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01597245 and NCT01646177. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2012, and Dec 30, 2013, 1224 patients in UNCOVER-2 were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous placebo (n=168), etanercept (n=358), or ixekizumab every 2 weeks (n=351) or every 4 weeks (n=347); between Aug 11, 2012, and Feb 27, 2014, 1346 patients in UNCOVER-3 were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=193), etanercept (n=382), ixekizumab every 2 weeks (n=385), or ixekizumab every 4 weeks (n=386). At week 12, both primary endpoints were met in both studies. For UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 respectively, in the ixekizumab every 2 weeks group, PASI 75 was achieved by 315 (response rate 89·7%; [effect size 87·4% (97·5% CI 82·9-91·8) vs placebo; 48·1% (41·2-55·0) vs etanercept]) and 336 (87·3%; [80·0% (74·4-85·7) vs placebo; 33·9% (27·0-40·7) vs etanercept]) patients; in the ixekizumab every 4 weeks group, by 269 (77·5%; [75·1% (69·5-80·8) vs placebo; 35·9% (28·2-43·6) vs etanercept]) and 325 (84·2%; [76·9% (71·0-82·8) vs placebo; 30·8% (23·7-37·9) vs etanercept]) patients; in the placebo group, by four (2·4%) and 14 (7·3%) patients; and in the etanercept group by 149 (41·6%) and 204 (53·4%) patients (all p<0·0001 vs placebo or etanercept). In the ixekizumab every 2 weeks group, sPGA 0/1 was achieved by 292 (response rate 83·2%; [effect size 80·8% (97·5% CI 75·6-86·0) vs placebo; 47·2% (39·9-54·4) vs etanercept]) and 310 (80·5%; [73·8% (67·7-79·9) vs placebo; 38·9% (31·7-46·1) vs etanercept]) patients; in the ixekizumab every 4 weeks group by 253 (72·9%; [70·5% (64·6-76·5) vs placebo; 36·9% (29·1-44·7) vs etanercept]) and 291 (75·4%; [68·7% (62·3-75·0) vs placebo; 33·8% (26·3-41·3) vs etanercept]) patients; in the placebo group by four (2·4%) and 13 (6·7%) patients; and in the etanercept group by 129 (36·0%) and 159 (41·6%) patients (all p<0·0001 vs placebo or etanercept). In combined studies, serious adverse events were reported in 14 (1·9%) of 734 patients given ixekizumab every 2 weeks, 14 (1·9%) of 729 given ixekizumab every 4 weeks, seven (1·9%) of 360 given placebo, and 14 (1·9%) of 739 given etanercept; no deaths were noted. INTERPRETATION: Both ixekizumab dose regimens had greater efficacy than placebo and etanercept over 12 weeks in two independent studies. These studies show that selectively neutralising interleukin 17A with a high affinity antibody potentially gives patients with psoriasis a new and effective biological therapy option. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Co.

A 52-week, open-label study of the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab, an anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated positive responses to ixekizumab, an anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in a phase-II, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of ixekizumab. METHODS: After receiving 10, 25, 75, or 150 mg of ixekizumab or placebo during randomized, placebo-controlled trial, patients with less than 75% improvement from baseline on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score (PASI75) entered open-label extension (OLE); patients with PASI75 or higher entered a treatment-free period (weeks 20-32), then entered OLE after meeting response criteria. During OLE, patients received 120 mg of subcutaneous ixekizumab every 4 weeks. RESULTS: In all, 120 patients entered OLE; 103 completed 52 weeks or more of treatment. Overall, 77% of patients achieved PASI75 at week 52 (nonresponder imputation). Patients who responded to treatment in the randomized, placebo-controlled trial maintained a high-level response by week 52 of OLE (PASI75 = 95%; 90% improvement from baseline on the PASI score = 94%; 100% improvement from baseline on the PASI score = 82%). Irrespective of dose in the randomized, placebo-controlled trial, each group had similar response rates at week 52 of OLE. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate for adverse events was 0.47 and for serious adverse events was 0.06 per patient-year during OLE. LIMITATIONS: No control group, small sample sizes, and bias toward retention of patients with positive responses limit interpretation. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of patients responded to ixekizumab therapy and maintained clinical responses over 1 year of treatment with no unexpected safety signals.

Effect of naltrexone plus bupropion on weight loss in overweight and obese adults (COR-I): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing public health concerns regarding obesity, few safe and effective drug treatments are available. Combination treatment with sustained-release naltrexone and bupropion was developed to produce complementary actions in CNS pathways regulating bodyweight. The Contrave Obesity Research I (COR-I) study assessed the effect of such treatment on bodyweight in overweight and obese participants. METHODS: Men and women aged 18-65 years who had a body-mass index (BMI) of 30-45 kg/m(2) and uncomplicated obesity or BMI 27-45 kg/m(2) with dyslipidaemia or hypertension were eligible for enrolment in this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial undertaken at 34 sites in the USA. Participants were prescribed mild hypocaloric diet and exercise and were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive sustained-release naltrexone 32 mg per day plus sustained-release bupropion 360 mg per day combined in fixed-dose tablets (also known as NB32), sustained-release naltrexone 16 mg per day plus sustained-release bupropion 360 mg per day combined in fixed-dose tablets (also known as NB16), or matching placebo twice a day, given orally for 56 weeks. The trial included a 3-week dose escalation. Randomisation was done by use of a centralised, computer-generated, web-based system and was stratified by study centre. Co-primary efficacy endpoints at 56 weeks were percentage change in bodyweight and proportion of participants who achieved a decrease in bodyweight of 5% or more. The primary analysis included all randomised participants with a baseline weight measurement and a post-baseline weight measurement while on study drug (last observation carried forward). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00532779. FINDINGS: 1742 participants were enrolled and randomised to double-blind treatment (naltrexone 32 mg plus bupropion, n=583; naltrexone 16 mg plus bupropion, n=578; placebo, n=581). 870 (50%) participants completed 56 weeks of treatment (n=296; n=284; n=290, respectively) and 1453 (83%) were included in the primary analysis (n=471; n=471; n=511). Mean change in bodyweight was -1.3% (SE 0.3) in the placebo group, -6.1% (0.3) in the naltrexone 32 mg plus bupropion group (p<0.0001 vs placebo) and -5.0% (0.3) in the naltrexone 16 mg plus bupropion group (p<0.0001 vs placebo). 84 (16%) participants assigned to placebo had a decrease in bodyweight of 5% or more compared with 226 (48%) assigned to naltrexone 32 mg plus bupropion (p<0.0001 vs placebo) and 186 (39%) assigned to naltrexone 16 mg plus bupropion (p<0.0001 vs placebo). The most frequent adverse event in participants assigned to combination treatment was nausea (naltrexone 32 mg plus bupropion, 171 participants [29.8%]; naltrexone 16 mg plus bupropion, 155 [27.2%]; placebo, 30 [5.3%]). Headache, constipation, dizziness, vomiting, and dry mouth were also more frequent in the naltrexone plus bupropion groups than in the placebo group. A transient increase of around 1.5 mm Hg in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure was followed by a reduction of around 1 mm Hg below baseline in the naltrexone plus bupropion groups. Combination treatment was not associated with increased depression or suicidality events compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: A sustained-release combination of naltrexone plus bupropion could be a useful therapeutic option for treatment of obesity. FUNDING: Orexigen Therapeutics.

Efficacy and tolerability of an mGlu2/3 agonist in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

LY354740, a potent and selective mGlu (metabotropic glutamate receptor)2/3 agonist, has shown efficacy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). LY544344 is a LY354740 prodrug that increases LY354740 bioavailability. This 8-week study was designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LY544344 in the treatment of GAD. Participants had a diagnoses of GAD, baseline Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety subscale scores > or = 10, and moderate illness severity. Patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with LY544344 16 mg b.i.d. (n = 28), LY544344 8 mg b.i.d. (n = 36), or placebo (n = 44). LY544344 16 mg b.i.d.-treated patients showed significantly greater improvement from baseline in Hamilton Anxiety and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scores, as well as response and remission rates compared with placebo-treated patients. LY544344 was well tolerated and there were no significant differences in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events among the three treatment groups. However, the trial was discontinued early based on findings of convulsions in preclinical studies. In conclusion, the findings of this study support the potential efficacy of mGlu2/3 receptor agonist agents in the treatment of GAD. Additional studies will be needed to further assess the toxicological and clinical profile of LY354740/LY544344.

Duloxetine treatment for relapse prevention in adults with generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

The objective was to examine duloxetine 60-120 mg/day treatment for relapse prevention in adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Adult patients (N=887; mean age=43.3 years; 61.0% female) with DSM-IV-TR-defined GAD diagnosis were treated with duloxetine for 26 weeks. Patients who completed open-label phase and were treatment responders (>or=50% reduction in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score to or=2-point increase in illness severity ratings or by discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. During the double-blind phase, placebo-treated patients (N=201) relapsed more frequently (41.8%) than duloxetine-treated patients (13.7%, N=204, P

Efficacy of duloxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder in patients with clinically significant pain symptoms.

Anxiety disorders often are accompanied by painful physical symptoms. This report assessed the effectiveness of duloxetine in improving anxiety symptoms, pain severity, and patient functioning in adults diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), who presented with clinically significant pain symptoms. Data were pooled from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of duloxetine 60-120 mg once daily compared with placebo in the treatment of GAD. The primary patient population for these analyses was patients with baseline Visual Analog Scale (VAS) overall pain severity score > or =30. Of the 798 randomized patients that had baseline VAS scores, approximately 44.4% of GAD patients were identified as having baseline VAS overall pain severity score > or =30 (duloxetine N=208, placebo N=146). Duloxetine-treated patients had significantly greater improvement compared with placebo-treated patients on anxiety symptoms (measured by Hamilton Anxiety Scale total score), on patient functioning (measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale Global Functional Impairment Score and across all Sheehan Disability Scale domains), and on all VAS pain items. Patients achieving remission at endpoint, and patients with lower scores on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement and Patient Global Impression of Improvement scales had greater improvement in VAS pain severity scores. These results suggest that in patients with GAD who present with clinically significant pain symptoms, duloxetine is effective in reducing anxiety symptoms, pain severity, and in improving patient functioning.

Efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in elderly patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a pooled analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in elderly patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Acute-phase data from a subset of patients (>or=65 years) with GAD were pooled from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine (3 flexible, 1 fixed dosing). Patients were treated with duloxetine 60-120 mg once daily or placebo for 9-10 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the mean baseline-to-endpoint change in Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA) total score. Secondary measures included the HAMA psychic and somatic anxiety subscales and the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Of 1491 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 4.9% (duloxetine, n = 45; placebo, n = 28) were >or= 65 years old. Compared with placebo-treated patients, duloxetine-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvements on the HAMA-total (p = 0.029), the HAMA-psychic anxiety factor (p = 0.034), HADS-anxiety (p = 0.049) and -depression scales (p = 0.026), but not the HAMA somatic anxiety factor (p = 0.074). Nausea was reported significantly more often in duloxetine-treated patients (30.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.023); duloxetine-treated patients experienced greater weight loss (p = 0.018). More duloxetine-treated patients discontinued treatment due to an adverse event (22.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Duloxetine was effective in an elderly patient subset with GAD, although there was a high rate of discontinuations due to adverse events.

Implications of pain in generalized anxiety disorder: efficacy of duloxetine.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a post hoc evaluation of the prevalence of clinically significant pain and the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and concurrent pain. METHOD: Data from two 9- to 10-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials of duloxetine (60 to 120 mg) in DSM-IV-defined GAD were analyzed (study 1 was conducted from July 2004 to September 2005; study 2 was conducted from August 2004 to June 2005). Efficacy was assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), visual analog scales (VAS) for pain, the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement of Illness (CGI-I) scale, the Patient Global Impressions-Improvement (PGI-I) scale, and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) global functional impairment scale. RESULTS: Of 840 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 61.3% (302 duloxetine, 213 placebo) had VAS scores ≥ 30 mm on at least 1 of the pain scales, indicating clinically significant pain. Among those patients with concurrent pain at baseline, change from baseline to endpoint in the HAM-A total score (42.9% change in mean scores for duloxetine, 31.4% for placebo), HADS anxiety scale (40.3% vs. 22.8%), HADS depression scale (36.1% vs. 20.5%), HAM-A psychic factor (45.9% vs. 29.9%), and SDS global functional improvement score (45.5% vs. 22.1%) was significantly (all p's < .001) greater for duloxetine compared with placebo. Improvement on the CGI-I (p = .003) and PGI-I (p < .001) was also significantly greater for duloxetine. Response (HAM-A total score decrease ≥ 50%) (49% vs. 29%) and remission (HAM-A total score ≤ 7 at endpoint) (29% vs. 18%) rates were significantly greater for duloxetine compared with placebo (p < .001 and p = .041, respectively). Duloxetine demonstrated statistically significantly greater reduction in pain on all 6 VAS pain scales (all p's < .001 except headaches with p < .002) (for duloxetine, percent change in means from baseline to endpoint ranged from 40.1% to 45.2% across the 6 VAS scales; for placebo, 22.0% to 26.3%). CONCLUSION: Duloxetine, relative to placebo, improves anxiety symptoms, pain, and functional impairment among patients with GAD with concurrent clinically significant pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00122824 (study 1) and NCT00475969 (study 2).

Duloxetine as an SNRI treatment for generalized anxiety disorder: results from a placebo and active-controlled trial.

This study examined the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine 60-120 mg/day for the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo and active-controlled (venlafaxine extended-release 75-225 mg/day) trial designed to assess duloxetine 60-120 mg/day during 10 weeks of treatment in adults with Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders-IV-defined generalized anxiety disorder. The primary efficacy outcome measure was mean change from baseline to endpoint in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score assessed using analysis of covariance. A total of 487 patients were randomly assigned to duloxetine (n=162), venlafaxine XR (n=164), or placebo (n=161). Significantly greater improvement on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score occurred in the duloxetine (P=0.007) and venlafaxine XR (P<0.001) groups compared with the placebo group. Overall discontinuation rates did not differ among the three groups, but adverse event-related discontinuation was significantly higher in the duloxetine (14.2%, P<0.001) and venlafaxine XR (11.0%, P=0.001) groups than in the placebo group (1.9%). During the 2-week drug-tapering phase, discontinuation-emergent adverse events were significantly greater in the venlafaxine XR group (26.9%, P=0.04), but not in the duloxetine group (19.4%, P=0.448) compared with placebo (15.8%). Duloxetine 60-120 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 75-225 mg/day were each efficacious treatments for patients with generalized anxiety disorder.

Efficacy of duloxetine for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: implications for primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine, a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, for the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHOD: Patients were ≥ 18 years old and recruited from 5 European countries, the United States, and South Africa. The study had a 9-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design. A total of 513 patients (mean age = 43.8 years; 67.8% female) with a DSM-IV-defined GAD diagnosis received treatment with duloxetine 60 mg/day (N = 168), duloxetine 120 mg/day (N = 170), or placebo (N = 175). The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) total score. Secondary measures included the Sheehan Disability Scale, HAM-A psychic and somatic anxiety factor scores, and HAM-A response, remission, and sustained improvement rates. The study was conducted from July 2004 to September 2005. RESULTS: Both groups of duloxetine-treated patients demonstrated significantly greater improvements in anxiety symptom severity compared with placebo-treated patients as measured by HAM-A total score and HAM-A psychic and somatic anxiety factor scores (p values ranged from ≤ .01 to ≤ .001). Duloxetine-treated patients had greater functional improvements in Sheehan Disability Scale global and specific domain scores (p ≤ .001) than placebo-treated patients. Both duloxetine doses also resulted in significantly greater HAM-A response, remission, and sustained improvement rates compared with placebo (p values ranged from ≤ .01 to ≤ .001). The rate of study discontinuation due to adverse events was 11.3% for duloxetine 60 mg and 15.3% for duloxetine 120 mg versus 2.3% for placebo (p ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that duloxetine 60 mg/day and 120 mg/day were efficacious and well tolerated and thus may provide primary care physicians with a useful pharmacologic intervention for GAD. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00122824.

Safety and Efficacy of Open-label Subcutaneous Ixekizumab Treatment for 48 Weeks in a Phase II Study in Biologic-naive and TNF-IR Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ixekizumab, an anti-interleukin 17A monoclonal antibody, for safety and effectiveness through 64 weeks in biologic-naive and tumor necrosis factor-inadequate responder (TNF-IR) patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients completing the 16-week double-blind period of a phase II study were eligible to enter the open-label extension (OLE) for an additional 48 weeks of ixekizumab treatment. After a treatment hiatus between weeks 10 to 16, 232 biologic-naive and 158 TNF-IR patients entered the OLE with all patients receiving 160 mg ixekizumab at weeks 16, 18, and 20, and then every 4 weeks through Week 64. RESULTS: A total of 201 (87%) biologic-naive and 99 (62%) TNF-IR patients completed the OLE. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) occurred in 168 (72%) biologic-naive and 115 (73%) TNF-IR patients during the OLE. Most AE were mild to moderate in severity and did not lead to study discontinuation. Serious AE (SAE) occurred in 17 (7%) biologic-naive patients, including 5 (2%) serious infections and 2 (1%) deaths. SAE occurred in 18 (11%) TNF-IR patients, including 4 (3%) serious infections and 1 (1%) death. No mycobacterial or invasive fungal infections were reported. Clinical responses [American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, ACR70, and 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein] observed at Week 16 were maintained or improved through Week 64. CONCLUSION: Ixekizumab was well tolerated, and safety findings in the OLE were consistent overall with those in the double-blind period of this study. Clinical improvements observed with ixekizumab through Week 16 were maintained or improved in patients participating in the OLE through Week 64. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00966875.

Pain Assessment for the Dementing Elderly (PADE): reliability and validity of a new measure.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the reliability and validity of a measure to assess pain in individuals with advanced dementia. DESIGN: Sixty-five residents of long-term care facilities were assessed using a new rating tool, the Pain Assessment for the Dementing Elderly (PADE), in two separate studies: (1) Residents were assessed simultaneously by two different raters, at Time 1 and 2, to establish interrater reliability, stability, and internal consistency. (2) Validity was established by assessing the correlation between an agitation scale and the PADE; by comparing groups with pain as a significant clinical factor (as assessed by an independent rater) versus not a significant factor, and by assessing individuals receiving versus not receiving psychoactive medications. SETTING: Four different long-term care facilities, three skilled nursing facilities, and a locked dementia assisted-living facility. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five residents of long-term care facilities with advanced levels of dementia in Study 1, and 40 residents with similar level of dementia in Study 2; 42% of the total sample were rated as having significant painful conditions. MEASUREMENTS: For Study 1, the PADE was administered; for Study 2, the PADE and the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) were administered. RESULTS: Reliability coefficients were adequate (interrater = 0.54-0.95; stability = 0.70-0.98; and internal consistency = 0.24-0.88). Validity coefficients were likewise encouraging, with the PADE demonstrating the expected relationship with a measure of agitation. The PADE also differentiated between groups that were independently judged to suffer clinically problematic pain versus those who were not. CONCLUSION: The PADE is a reliable and valid tool to assess pain in dementing elderly residents of long-term care facilities.

Weight loss with naltrexone SR/bupropion SR combination therapy as an adjunct to behavior modification: the COR-BMOD trial.

This 56-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial examined the efficacy and safety of naltrexone plus bupropion as an adjunct to intensive behavior modification (BMOD). A total of 793 participants (BMI = 36.5 ± 4.2 kg/m²) was randomly assigned in a 1:3 ratio to: (i) placebo + BMOD (N = 202); or (ii) naltrexone sustained-release (SR, 32 mg/day), combined with bupropion SR (360 mg/day) plus BMOD (i.e., NB32 + BMOD; N = 591). Both groups were prescribed an energy-reduced diet and 28 group BMOD sessions. Co-primary end points were percentage change in weight and the proportion of participants who lost ≥5% weight at week 56. Efficacy analyses were performed on a modified intent-to-treat population (ITT; i.e., participants with ≥1 postbaseline weight while taking study drug (placebo + BMOD, N = 193; NB32 + BMOD, N = 482)). Missing data were replaced with the last observation obtained on study drug. At week 56, weight loss was 5.1 ± 0.6% with placebo + BMOD vs. 9.3 ± 0.4% with NB32 + BMOD (P < 0.001). A completers analysis revealed weight losses of 7.3 ± 0.9% (N = 106) vs. 11.5 ± 0.6% (N = 301), respectively (P < 0.001). A third analysis, which included all randomized participants, yielded losses of 4.9 ± 0.6 vs. 7.8 ± 0.4%, respectively (P < 0.001). Significantly more NB32 + BMOD- vs. placebo + BMOD-treated participants lost ≥5 and ≥10% of initial weight, and the former had significantly greater improvements in markers of cardiometabolic disease risk. NB32 + BMOD was generally well tolerated, although associated with more reports of nausea than placebo + BMOD. The present findings support the efficacy of combined naltrexone/bupropion therapy as an adjunct to intensive BMOD for obesity.

Path to bariatric nurse certification: the practice analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) nursing membership embarked on a journey to develop a specialty certification program for nurses caring for morbidly obese and bariatric surgical patients. In keeping with the certification industry best practices, a practice analysis study was conducted to create an empirically sound foundation for the new nursing specialty certification examination. METHODS: Task force meetings, subject-matter expert interviews, and an external review process were implemented to create a definition of the specialty in terms of 4 domains of practice, 45 nursing tasks, and 54 knowledge areas. The definition encompassed the work of bariatric nurse coordinators, bariatric program directors, and floor nurses caring for morbidly obese and bariatric surgical patients. A survey was administered to 1084 nurses practicing in the specialty to validate the domains, tasks, and knowledge. RESULTS: Some differences in the time spent in each of the domains and tasks were noted for the survey respondents in the different job roles. Nevertheless, the respondents for all job roles rated the domains and tasks moderately or highly important in optimizing the outcomes for morbidly obese and bariatric surgery patients. In addition, most respondents agreed that the 54 knowledge areas were acquired during the first 2 years of practice in the specialty. CONCLUSION: The survey results validated a specialized body of nursing knowledge rooted in the tasks that define professional practice. The results are being used to guide the development of a certification program for nurses practicing in the specialty and to provide guidance for education and training initiatives.

An open-label study of naltrexone and bupropion combination therapy for smoking cessation in overweight and obese subjects.

A combination of sustained release (SR) naltrexone (32 mg/day) and bupropion SR (360 mg/day) plus behavioral counseling was evaluated for the treatment of smoking cessation and mitigation of nicotine withdrawal and weight gain. Thirty overweight or obese nicotine-dependent subjects were enrolled in a 24-week, open-label study; 85% and 63% completed 12 and 2 4weeks, respectively. The target quit date was Week 4. Week 4-12 continuous abstinence rate was 48%, 78% of subjects achieved CO < or = 10 ppm, serum cotinine decreased from 185 to 48 microg/L, and tobacco use decreased from 129 to 14 cigarettes/week. Similar results were seen at Week 24. Body weight was essentially unchanged (Week 12: -0.1%; Week 24: +0.4%). Except for a transient significant increase 1 week after the target quit date (p<0.05), nicotine withdrawal scores did not change. The most common adverse events were nausea, insomnia, and constipation. These tended to be transient and mild or moderate in severity. In overweight or obese smokers, naltrexone/bupropion combination therapy with behavioral counseling was associated with decreased nicotine use, limited nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and no significant weight gain.