Comparison of Iridocorneal Angle Assessments in Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension Patients: Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Gonioscopy.

Purpose: To quantitatively compare iridocorneal angle assessments using gonioscopy and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT). Patients: US and Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and/or ocular hypertension (OHT). Methods: Analysis was pooled from 2 multicenter, noninterventional studies conducted in the US and China. Gonioscopy Shaffer grade and an AS-OCT method that approximates the angle width relative to local morphologic variations were compared by measuring the same iridocorneal angles. A third, separate, single-center, noninterventional study was conducted to verify results observed from the pooled analysis. Results: From the pooled studies, a total of 239 eyes were measured using Shaffer grade and AS-OCT. Of these, 6 were Shaffer grade 2, 37 in Shaffer grade 3, and 196 in Shaffer grade 4. There was a trend of increasing Shaffer grade with increasing AS-OCT angle width. Open iridocorneal angles, Shaffer grade ≥3, had a ~98% sensitivity and 88% positive predictive value for identifying AS-OCT angle width ≥300 µm, using the AS-OCT method. To verify these results, a total of 28 right eyes were imaged for the third study. A trend of increasing Shaffer grade with increasing AS-OCT angle width was observed, and angles with Shaffer grade ≤2 had AS-OCT angle width <300 µm. Conclusion: The AS-OCT method can determine the space in the anterior chamber and can potentially identify angles that are the appropriate size for certain glaucoma devices. Information gathered from AS-OCT can provide additional comprehensive and quantitative assessment to gonioscopy.

Vilazodone efficacy in subgroups of patients with major depressive disorder: a post-hoc analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

The efficacy of antidepressants to treat major depressive disorder (MDD) varies by patient characteristics. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the effects of vilazodone across patient subgroups in adults with MDD. Data were pooled from four trials of vilazodone (NCT00285376, NCT00683592, NCT01473394, and NCT01473381). Mean change from baseline to week 8 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, MADRS response (≥50% total score improvement), and MADRS remission (total score≤10) were analyzed in the pooled intent-to-treat population (vilazodone=1254, placebo=964) and in subgroups of patients categorized by sex, age, MDD duration, recurrent episodes, baseline MADRS total score, and current episode duration. MADRS total score improvement was significantly greater with vilazodone versus placebo in the intent-to-treat population and in all patient subgroups (P<0.001). MADRS response and remission rates significantly separated from placebo (P<0.05) regardless of age, sex, MDD duration, recurrent MDD, and baseline symptom severity [except remission in patients with very severe baseline symptoms (MADRS score≥35)] and in patients with a shorter current episode duration (≤12 months). Despite the limitations associated with analyzing uncommon outcomes (e.g. MADRS remission) in small subgroups, vilazodone was an effective treatment in multiple patient populations, including those where reduced efficacy has previously been reported: males, older individuals, patients with a longer duration of MDD, and patients with recurrent depression.

Post hoc analyses of asenapine treatment in pediatric patients with bipolar I disorder: efficacy related to mixed or manic episode, stage of illness, and body weight.

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics and disease progression may affect response to pharmacologic intervention in bipolar I disorder. Asenapine is approved for acute treatment of manic/mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder in patients 10-17 years old. Post hoc analyses assessed asenapine efficacy in pediatric patients by current manic or mixed episode, number of lifetime episodes, and baseline body mass index (BMI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from a 3-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial of asenapine 2.5, 5.0, or 10.0 mg twice daily (BID) in male or female patients (10-17 years) with bipolar I disorder (NCT01244815). Patients were stratified by current episode type (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition - defined mixed/manic), number of lifetime episodes (<3, 3-5, >5), and baseline BMI tertile. Changes from baseline to day 21 in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions Scale for use in Bipolar Illness (CGI-BP) were assessed in asenapine subgroups vs placebo. RESULTS: In patients with mixed episodes, differences in YMRS and CGI-BP scores were statistically significant for each asenapine dose vs placebo (P<0.001) at day 21; in patients with manic episodes, significant differences vs placebo were seen in all groups (P<0.05) except 2.5 mg BID on the YMRS. In patients with <3 previous mixed/manic episodes, significant differences in YMRS and CGI-BP scores were observed for all asenapine doses vs placebo (P<0.05). In patients with 3-5 or >5 previous episodes, asenapine 10 mg BID was significantly different than placebo (P<0.05) on both scales; differences vs placebo varied for lower doses. Baseline body weight or BMI did not appear to influence the efficacy of asenapine. CONCLUSION: Asenapine was effective in the treatment of pediatric patients with bipolar I disorder. Efficacy did not appear to be influenced by the type of current episode, stage of disease progression, or baseline body weight/BMI.

Relapse prevention in adults with major depressive disorder treated with vilazodone: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

This randomized withdrawal study assessed relapse prevention with vilazodone in adults with major depressive disorder. After 20 weeks of open-label treatment with vilazodone 40 mg/day, responders were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to 28 weeks of double-blind, fixed-dose treatment with vilazodone 20 mg/day, vilazodone 40 mg/day, or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first relapse, defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score of at least 18 and meeting major depressive episode criteria, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score of at least 18 at two consecutive visits, or discontinuation for an insufficient therapeutic response. Of 1204 patients who received open-label treatment, 564 completed treatment and were randomized (placebo=192, vilazodone 20 mg/day=185, vilazodone 40 mg/day=187). No significant difference was detected in time to relapse during the double-blind period (P>0.05). The crude percentage of patients that relapsed was similar between treatment groups (placebo=12.6%; vilazodone 20 mg/day=11.4%; vilazodone 40 mg/day=13.4%). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhea (29.6%), nausea (24.0%), and headache (14.0%) during open-label treatment and headache (8.9%), nasopharyngitis (8.4%), and diarrhea (7.5%) during double-blind treatment in the combined vilazodone groups (20 and 40 mg/day). In conclusion, time to relapse with vilazodone was not statistically different from placebo. Vilazodone was generally well tolerated in adults with major depressive disorder.

Effects of asenapine on agitation and hostility in adults with acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is associated with an increased risk of aggression. However, effective management of hostility and/or agitation symptoms may prevent patients from becoming violent. This analysis investigated the efficacy of the antipsychotic asenapine on hostility and agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder. METHODS: Data were pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trials of asenapine in adults with manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder (NCT00159744, NCT00159796, and NCT00764478). Post hoc analyses assessed the changes from baseline to day 21 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) hostility-related item scores in asenapine- or placebo-treated patients with at least minimal or mild symptom severity and on the PANSS-excited component (PANSS-EC) total score in agitated patients. Changes were adjusted for improvements in overall mania symptoms to investigate direct effects on hostility. RESULTS: Significantly greater changes in favor of asenapine versus placebo were observed in YMRS hostility-related item scores (irritability: least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval] =-0.5 [-0.87, -0.22], P=0.001; disruptive-aggressive behavior: -0.7 [-0.99, -0.37], P<0.0001), PANSS hostility item score (-0.2 [-0.44, -0.04]; P=0.0181), and PANSS-EC total score (-1.4 [-2.4, -0.4]; P=0.0055). Changes in the YMRS disruptive-aggressive behavior score and the sum of the hostility-related items remained significant after adjusting for improvements in other YMRS item scores. CONCLUSION: Asenapine significantly reduced hostility and agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder; improvement was at least partially independent of overall improvement on mania symptoms.

Effects of vilazodone on suicidal ideation and behavior in adults with major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder: post-hoc analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Treatment-emergent suicidal ideation and behavior are ongoing concerns with antidepressants. Vilazodone, currently approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, has also been evaluated in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Post-hoc analyses of vilazodone trials were carried out to examine its effects on suicidal ideation and behavior in adults with MDD or GAD. Data were pooled from vilazodone trials in MDD (four studies) and GAD (three studies). The incidence of suicide-related events was analyzed on the basis of treatment-emergent adverse event reporting and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) monitoring. Treatment-emergent suicidal ideation was analyzed on the basis of a C-SSRS category shift from no suicidal ideation/behavior (C-SSRS=0) at baseline to suicide ideation (C-SSRS=1-5) during treatment. In pooled safety populations (MDD, n=2233; GAD, n=1475), suicide-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in less than 1% of vilazodone-treated and placebo-treated patients. Incidences of C-SSRS suicidal ideation were as follows: MDD (vilazodone=19.9%, placebo=24.7%); GAD (vilazodone=7.7%, placebo=9.4%). Shifts from no suicidal ideation/behavior at baseline to suicidal ideation during treatment were as follows: MDD (vilazodone=9.4%, placebo=10.3%); GAD (vilazodone=4.4%, placebo=6.1%). Data from placebo-controlled studies indicate little or no risk of treatment-emergent suicidal ideation or behavior with vilazodone in adults with MDD or GAD. Nevertheless, all patients should be monitored for suicidal thoughts and behaviors during antidepressant treatment.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation in patients with schizophrenia: A phase-1, single-dose, randomized, open-label study.

This multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase-1 study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of the investigational intramuscular paliperidone palmitate 3-month (PP3M) formulation in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. A total of 328 patients (men or women, aged 18-65 years) were enrolled in 1 of 4 separately conducted panels (A to D). Each panel had 2 single-dose treatment periods (period 1, 1 mg intramuscular paliperidone immediate release [IR]; period 2, intramuscular PP3M 75-525 mg eq) separated by a washout of 7-21 days. Overall, 245 of 308 (79.5%) PP3M-dosed patients completed the study. Because the PK studies of panels A and C were compromised by incomplete injection in some patients, PK data from only panels B and D are presented. Safety data from all panels are presented. Peak paliperidone plasma concentration was achieved between 23 and 34 days, and apparent half-life was ∼2-4 months. Mean plasma AUC∞ and Cmax of paliperidone appeared to be dose-proportional. Relative bioavailability in comparison with paliperidone was ∼100% independent of the dose and injection site. Headache and nasopharyngitis were the most common (>7%) treatment-emergent adverse events. Overall, safety and tolerability were similar to those of the 1-month formulation. Results support a once-every-3-months dosing interval in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Finite element modeling of hyper-viscoelasticity of peripheral nerve ultrastructures.

The mechanical characteristics of ultrastructures of rat sciatic nerves were investigated through animal experiments and finite element analyses. A custom-designed dynamic testing apparatus was used to conduct in vitro transverse compression experiments on the nerves. The optical coherence tomography (OCT) was utilized to record the cross-sectional images of nerve during the dynamic testing. Two-dimensional finite element models of the nerves were built based on their OCT images. A hyper-viscoelastic model was employed to describe the elastic and stress relaxation response of each ultrastructure of the nerve, namely the endoneurium, the perineurium and the epineurium. The first-order Ogden model was employed to describe the elasticity of each ultrastructure and a generalized Maxwell model for the relaxation. The inverse finite element analysis was used to estimate the material parameters of the ultrastructures. The results show the instantaneous shear modulus of the ultrastructures in decreasing order is perineurium, endoneurium, and epineurium. The FE model combined with the first-order Ogden model and the second-order Prony series is good enough for describing the compress-and-hold response of the nerve ultrastructures. The integration of OCT and the nonlinear finite element modeling may be applicable to study the viscoelasticity of peripheral nerve down to the ultrastructural level.

Esmolol in acute ischemic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: beta-Blockers have been shown to reduce both morbidity and mortality rates in patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, because of potential side effects, their use is limited in patients who might benefit the most from such therapy. It was thought that the use of an ultra-short-acting intravenous beta-blocker might produce similar results with fewer complications in those patients with relative contraindications to beta-blocker therapy. METHODS: Accordingly, we evaluated the use of esmolol in patients with acute coronary syndromes and relative contraindication to beta-blocker therapy in a prospective randomized trial. One hundred eight patients at 21 sites received an infusion of intravenous esmolol or standard therapy on admission and were followed for 6 weeks from the day of admission. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite event consisting of any of the following that occurred during the index hospitalization: death, myocardial (re)infarction, recurrent ischemia, or arrhythmia as well as silent myocardial ischemia assessed by ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring. Safety end points including hypotension, bradyarrhythmias, new or worsening congestive heart failure, and bronchospasm were also recorded. RESULTS: Event rates for primary end points were similar in the 2 groups: death (2% in the standard care group vs 4% in the group receiving esmolol), myocardial (re)infarction (4% standard vs 7% esmolol), ischemia (12% vs 13%), arrhythmias (4% vs 2%), and silent ischemia (13% vs 15%). There was a higher incidence of transient hypotension in the group receiving esmolol (2% vs 16%), but all such events were noted to resolve after discontinuation of the esmolol infusion. There were no additional differences in safety end points: bradycardia (2% for those receiving standard care vs 9% receiving esmolol), new congestive heart failure (10% vs 16%), bronchospasm (0% vs 7%), and heart block (2% vs 2%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an ultra-short-acting beta-blocker such as esmolol might offer an alternative to patients with contraindications to standard beta-blocker therapy. Although this trial had limited power to detect safety and efficacy differences between the 2 therapies, it was observed that safety end points, which occurred during esmolol administration, resolved readily when the infusions were decreased or discontinued. Additional testing is needed to substantiate these findings.

Switching to once-daily liraglutide from twice-daily exenatide further improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes using oral agents.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of switching from twice-daily exenatide to once-daily liraglutide or of 40 weeks of continuous liraglutide therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: When added to oral antidiabetes drugs in a 26-week randomized trial (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes [LEAD]-6), liraglutide more effectively improved A1C, fasting plasma glucose, and the homeostasis model of beta-cell function (HOMA-B) than exenatide, with less persistent nausea and hypoglycemia. In this 14-week extension of LEAD-6, patients switched from 10 microg twice-daily exenatide to 1.8 mg once-daily liraglutide or continued liraglutide. RESULTS: Switching from exenatide to liraglutide further and significantly reduced A1C (0.32%), fasting plasma glucose (0.9 mmol/l), body weight (0.9 kg), and systolic blood pressure (3.8 mmHg) with minimal minor hypoglycemia (1.30 episodes/patient-year) or nausea (3.2%). Among patients continuing liraglutide, further significant decreases in body weight (0.4 kg) and systolic blood pressure (2.2 mmHg) occurred with 0.74 episodes/patient-year of minor hypoglycemia and 1.5% experiencing nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion from exenatide to liraglutide is well tolerated and provides additional glycemic control and cardiometabolic benefits.

A randomized trial comparing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion of insulin aspart versus insulin lispro in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The safety and efficacy of insulin aspart continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) was compared with that of insulin lispro CSII in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Children and adolescents aged 4-18 years with diagnosed type 1 diabetes >or=1 year previously and treated with insulin analog in a CSII >or=3 months were randomly assigned 2:1 to 16 weeks of insulin aspart CSII (n = 198) or insulin lispro CSII (n = 100) in this open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study. Standard diabetes safety and efficacy parameters were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline demographics, subject characteristics, and diabetes history were similar between treatment groups. After 16 weeks of treatment, insulin aspart CSII was noninferior to insulin lispro CSII as measured by change in A1C from baseline (aspart, -0.15 +/- 0.05%; lispro, -0.05 +/- 0.07% [95% CI of the treatment difference -0.27 to 0.07]; P = 0.241). No significant differences between treatment groups were observed in fasting plasma glucose, hyperglycemia, and rates of hypoglycemic episodes. At week 16, 59.7% of subjects in the aspart group and 43.8% of subjects in the lispro groups achieved age-specific American Diabetes Association A1C goals (<8.5% for subjects aged <6 years; <8% for subjects aged 6-18 years) (P = 0.040, corrected for baseline). Daily insulin dose (units per kilogram) was significantly lower at week 16 for subjects treated with aspart compared with those treated with lispro (0.86 +/- 0.237 vs. 0.94 +/- 0.233, P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin aspart was as safe and effective as insulin lispro for use in a CSII in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

The comparative effects of desflurane and isoflurane on lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial tumors.

UNLABELLED: We compared the effects of desflurane and isoflurane on cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure (LCSFP), and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) in patients anesthetized with desflurane or isoflurane undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial mass lesions. Additionally, emergence from anesthesia was examined to determine if neurologic function could be assessed earlier after isoflurane or desflurane anesthesia. Thirty-six patients were randomized to receive either desflurane or isoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia at 1.2 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC). Patients were hyperventilated (PaCO(2), 30 +/- 2 mm Hg) after baseline LCSFP was obtained via the subarachnoid catheter. At a MAC of 1.2, mean LCSFP was not statistically different between the two study groups either before or after hyperventilation. Additionally, CPP was not significantly different between the two groups. Finally, patient's time to respond to commands was 50% shorter in the desflurane group (30 +/- 36 min) (mean +/- SD) when compared with the isoflurane group (72 +/- 126 min); however, this was not significant (P = 0.17). In patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial mass lesions, desflurane and isoflurane have similar effects on CPP and MAP. Additionally, desflurane in the setting of hyperventilation does not cause significant changes in LCSFP. IMPLICATIONS: This is the largest study to date comparing the effects of desflurane and isoflurane on patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial mass lesion with evidence of midline shift or edema. Neither desflurane nor isoflurane significantly altered lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure when moderate hypocapnia was maintained.