Occurrence, distribution, and health risk assessment of quinolone antibiotics in water, sediment, and fish species of Qingshitan reservoir, South China.

The residual antibiotics in the environment have lately caused widespread concerns. However, little information is available on the antibiotic bioaccumulation and its health risk in drinking water resources of South China. Therefore, the occurrence, distribution, and health risk of four quinolone antibiotics including ofloxacin (OFX), norfloxacin (NOR), ciprofloxacin (CIP), and enrofloxacin (ENR) in the Qingshitan reservoir using high-performance liquid chromatography were investigated. Results revealed that the concentrations in water, sediment, and edible fish ranged from 3.49-660.13 ng/L, 1.03-722.18 µg/kg, and 6.73-968.66 µg/kg, respectively. The ecological risk assessment via the risk quotient (RQ) method showed that the values in sediment were all greater than 1, posing a high risk to the environment. The health risk index of water samples was at the maximum acceptable level, with OFX at the top while the rest were at the medium risk level. The main edible fish kinds of the reservoir had high dietary safety and the highest contaminations were found in carnivorous feeding habits and demersal habitat fishes with OFX as the highest magnitude. Source identification and correlation analysis using SPSS showed significant relationships between NOR with pH and turbidity (in water), as well as total phosphor (TP) and total organic carbon (TOC) in sediment. NOR was the highest in sediment which mostly sourced from livestock wastewater, croplands irrigation drain water, and stormwater. Correlations between CIP and ENR with TP were significant, while OFX was positively associated with total nitrogen (TN) which mainly originated from urban sewage as well as directly dosed drugs in fish farms. In conclusion, our results are of great significance for ensuring the safety of drinking water and aquatic products in this region.

Cost-effectiveness of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate inhalation powder for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD in the US.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol 27.5 µg/glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg) inhalation powder, a twice-daily, fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA), is indicated in the US for long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD. The safety and efficacy of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg have been established, but cost-effectiveness is not yet known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg with other long-acting COPD maintenance therapies. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective. Health states were defined as mild (post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥80% of predicted), moderate (50% ≤FEV1 <80% of predicted), severe (30% ≤FEV1 <50% of predicted), and very severe (FEV1 <30% of predicted) COPD. Patients entering the model transitioned through health states based on placebo-adjusted change from baseline in trough FEV1 for each comparator at week 12. Comparators included other US Food and Drug Administration-approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations as well as commonly prescribed LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model assumptions and the overall robustness of the results. RESULTS: Using the model, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg treatment for 12 weeks resulted in total costs of US $23,375 vs US $9,365 for placebo. Compared with placebo, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 treatment resulted in the highest improvement in FEV1 across all comparators and the lowest cost per decline in 100 mL FEV1. IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg was also among the most cost-effective treatment option as measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire response rate, at US $3,518 per additional responder at 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg had the lowest cost per severe exacerbation avoided vs placebo across all comparators (US $87,686). CONCLUSION: This model, developed from the US payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon, found IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a fixed-dose combination of indacaterol and glycopyrronium as maintenance treatment for COPD.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) as a maintenance treatment for COPD patients from the perspective of health care payer in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We adopted a patient-level simulation model, which included a cohort of COPD patients aged ≥40 years. The intervention used in the study was the treatment using IND/GLY, and comparators were tiotropium or salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC). Data related to the efficacy of drugs, incidence of exacerbation, and utility were obtained from clinical studies. Direct costs were estimated from claims data based on the severity of COPD. The cycle length was 6 months (to match forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] data), and the time horizons included 1, 3, 5, 10 years, and lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model results. Costs were expressed in US dollars with a discount rate of 3.0%. RESULTS: Compared to tiotropium and SFC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of patients treated with IND/GLY were US$5,987 and US$14,990, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the improvement in FEV1 provided by IND/GLY, the distribution of patients with regard to the severity of COPD, and acute exacerbation rate ratio were the key drivers behind cost-effectiveness. Adopting a willingness to pay of US$60,000 per QALY gained as the threshold, there was a 98.7% probability that IND/GLY was cost-effective compared to tiotropium. Similarly, there was a 99.9% probability that IND/GLY was cost-effective compared to SFC. CONCLUSION: As a maintenance treatment for COPD, we consider the dual bronchodilator IND/GLY as a cost-effective strategy when compared to either tiotropium or SFC.

Assessment of safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with combination lumacaftor and ivacaftor therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation (PROGRESS): a phase 3, extension study.

BACKGROUND: The 24-week safety and efficacy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy was shown in two randomised controlled trials (RCTs)-TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT-in patients with cystic fibrosis who were aged 12 years or older and homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. We aimed to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of extended lumacaftor/ivacaftor therapy in this group of patients in PROGRESS, the long-term extension of TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT. METHODS: PROGRESS was a phase 3, parallel-group, multicentre, 96-week study of patients who completed TRAFFIC or TRANSPORT in 191 sites in 15 countries. Patients were eligible if they were at least 12 years old with cystic fibrosis and homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. Exclusion criteria included any comorbidity or laboratory abnormality that, in the opinion of the investigator, might confound the results of the study or pose an additional risk in administering the study drug to the participant, history of drug intolerance, and history of poor compliance with the study drug. Patients who previously received active treatment in TRANSPORT or TRAFFIC remained on the same dose in PROGRESS. Patients who had received placebo in TRANSPORT or TRAFFIC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive lumacaftor (400 mg every 12 h)/ivacaftor (250 mg every 12 h) or lumacaftor (600 mg once daily)/ivacaftor (250 mg every 12 h). The primary outcome was to assess the long-term safety of combined therapy. The estimated annual rate of decline in percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) in treated patients was compared with that of a matched registry cohort. Efficacy analyses were based on modified intention-to-treat, such that data were included for all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01931839. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2013, and April 7, 2016, 1030 patients from the TRANSPORT and TRAFFIC studies enrolled in PROGRESS, and 1029 received at least one dose of study drug. 340 patients continued treatment with lumacaftor 400 mg every 12 h/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h; 176 patients who had received placebo in the TRANSPORT or TRAFFIC studies initiated treatment with lumacaftor 400 mg every 12 h/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h, the commercially available dose, for which data are presented. The most common adverse events were infective pulmonary exacerbations, cough, increased sputum, and haemoptysis. Modest blood pressure increases seen in TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT were also observed in PROGRESS. For patients continuing treatment, the mean change from baseline in ppFEV1 was 0·5 (95% CI -0·4 to 1·5) at extension week 72 and 0·5 (-0·7 to 1·6) at extension week 96; change in BMI was 0·69 (0·56 to 0·81) at extension week 72 and 0·96 (0·81 to 1·11) at extension week 96. The annualised pulmonary exacerbation rate in patients continuing treatment through extension week 96 (0·65, 0·56 to 0·75) remained lower than the placebo rate in TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT. The annualised rate of ppFEV1 decline was reduced in lumacaftor/ivacaftor-treated patients compared with matched controls (-1·33, -1·80 to -0·85 vs -2·29, -2·56 to -2·03). The efficacy and safety profile of the lumacaftor 600 mg once daily/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h groups was generally similar to that of the lumacaftor 400 mg every 12 h/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h groups. INTERPRETATION: The long-term safety profile of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy was consistent with previous RCTs. Benefits continued to be observed with longer-term treatment, and lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with a 42% slower rate of ppFEV1 decline than in matched registry controls. FUNDING: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Quinolone antibiotics and suicidal behavior: analysis of the World Health Organization's adverse drug reactions database and discussion of potential mechanisms.

RATIONALE: Several case-reports suggest that the use of quinolones may increase the risk of psychiatric adverse reactions such as suicidal behaviors. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is a safety signal for quinolone-related suicidal behaviors in a global adverse drug reactions database. METHODS: All antibiotic-related adverse reactions were extracted from VigiBase, the World Health Organization (WHO) global Individual Case Safety Report (ICSR) database. Disproportionality analyses were performed to investigate the association between reports of suicidal behavior and exposure to quinolones, in comparison with other antibiotics. RESULTS: From December 1970 through January 2015, we identified 992,097 antibiotic-related adverse reactions. Among them, 608 were quinolone-related suicidal behaviors including 97 cases of completed suicides. There was increased reporting of suicidal behavior (adjusted reporting odds ratios [ROR] 2.78, 95 % CI 2.51-3.08) with quinolones as compared to other antibiotics. Candidate mechanisms for quinolone-induced suicidal behaviors include GABAA antagonism, activation of NMDA receptors, decreased serotonin levels, oxidative stress, and altered microRNA expressions. CONCLUSIONS: We found a strong safety signal suggesting an increased risk of suicidal behaviors associated with quinolone use. Plausible psychopharmacological mechanisms could underlie this association. Further investigations are urgent to confirm and better understand these findings.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of multiple-dose intravenous nemonoxacin in healthy Chinese volunteers.

This study evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles of nemonoxacin in healthy Chinese volunteers following multiple-dose intravenous infusion once daily for 10 consecutive days. The study was composed of two stages. In the open-label stage, 500 mg or 750 mg of nemonoxacin (n = 12 each) was administered at an infusion rate of 5.56 mg/min. In the second stage, with a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled design, 500, 650, or 750 mg of nemonoxacin (n = 16 in each cohort; 12 subjects received the drug and the other 4 subjects received the placebo) was given at an infusion rate of 4.17 mg/min. The results showed that, in the first stage, the maximal nemonoxacin concentrations (mean ± SD) at steady state (Cmax_ss) were 9.60 ± 1.84 and 11.04 ± 2.18 µg/ml in the 500-mg and 750-mg cohorts, respectively; the areas under the concentration-time curve at steady state (AUC0-24_ss) were 44.03 ± 8.62 and 65.82 ± 10.78 µg · h/ml in the 500-mg and 750-mg cohorts, respectively. In the second stage, the nemonoxacin Cmax_ss values were 7.13 ± 1.47, 8.17 ± 1.76, and 9.96 ± 2.23 µg/ml in the 500-mg, 650-mg, and 750-mg cohorts, respectively; the AUC0-24_ss values were 40.46 ± 9.52, 54.17 ± 12.10, and 71.34 ± 17.79 µg · h/ml in the 500-mg, 650-mg, and 750-mg cohorts, respectively. No accumulation was found after the 10-day infusion with any regimen. The drug was well tolerated. A Monte Carlo simulation indicated that the cumulative fraction of response of any dosing regimen was nearly 100% against Streptococcus pneumoniae. The probability of target attainment of nemonoxacin therapy was >98% when the MIC of nemonoxacin against S. pneumoniae was ≤1 mg/liter. It is suggested that all of the studied intravenous nemonoxacin dosing regimens should have favorable clinical and microbiological efficacies in future clinical studies. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01944774.).

"First-wave" bias when conducting active safety monitoring of newly marketed medications with outcome-indexed self-controlled designs.

Large health care databases are used extensively for pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Unique methodological issues arise when applying self-controlled designs (i.e., using within-person comparisons) for active surveillance of newly marketed drugs. We use 3 examples to illustrate bias related to population-level exposure time trends when using outcome-indexed self-controlled (i.e., case-crossover) designs for active surveillance and evaluate the ability of the case-time-control design to adjust for bias from population-level exposure time trends. We mimicked active surveillance by conducting sequential analyses after market entry for 3 medications and outcomes (valdecoxib for myocardial infarction (MI), aripiprazole for MI, and telithromycin for acute liver failure) using Medicaid Analytic eXtracts (from all 50 US states, 2000-2006). The case-crossover exposure odds ratio (EOR) in the months immediately following valdecoxib market entry implausibly suggested a 12-fold higher risk of MI during exposed time relative to unexposed time; among age-, sex-, and time-matched controls, the corresponding EOR of 4.5 indicated strong population-level exposure time trends. Over subsequent monitoring periods, case-crossover EORs rapidly dropped to 1.4. Adjustment for bias from population-level exposure time trends with the case-time-control analysis resulted in more consistent associations between valdecoxib and MI across sequential monitoring periods. Similar results were observed in each example. Strong population-level exposure time trends can bias case-crossover studies conducted among "first-wave" users of newly marketed medications. Suggested strategies can help assess and adjust for population-level exposure time trends.

Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents: a NICE single technology appraisal.

As part of its single technology process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturers of aripiprazole (Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. and Bristol Myers Squibb) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the manufacturers' submission to NICE. The evidence, which was derived mainly from a double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled trial of aripiprazole in patients aged 10-17 years, showed that aripiprazole performed significantly better than placebo in reducing mania according to the primary outcome measurement (the Young Mania Rating Scale at 4 weeks). Safety outcomes indicated that aripiprazole was significantly more likely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms and somnolence than placebo. The manufacturers also presented a network meta-analysis of aripiprazole versus other atypical antipsychotics commonly used to treat manic episodes (olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone) to show that aripiprazole performed similarly to the comparator drugs in terms of efficacy and safety. Aripiprazole was demonstrated to perform better in safety outcomes of (1) less weight gain than olanzapine and quetiapine; and (2) less prolactin increase than olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone. Results from the manufacturers' economic evaluation showed that use of aripiprazole second-line dominated all of the other treatment strategies that were considered. However, there was considerable uncertainty in this result, and clinical advisors indicated that the actual treatment strategy employed in practice is likely to be dependent upon the patient's characteristics. The ERG demonstrated that if this personalised medicine resulted in improved cost effectiveness for any of the other treatment strategies, then they had the potential to dominate use of aripiprazole second-line. In conclusion, whilst a strategy including aripiprazole appeared to be cost effective relative to a strategy without it, there was not robust enough evidence to recommend a specific place for aripiprazole within the treatment pathway.

Optimizing nasal potential difference analysis for CFTR modulator development: assessment of ivacaftor in CF subjects with the G551D-CFTR mutation.

Nasal potential difference (NPD) is used as a biomarker of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) activity. We evaluated methods to detect changes in chloride and sodium transport by NPD based on a secondary analysis of a Phase II CFTR-modulator study. Thirty-nine subjects with CF who also had the G551D-CFTR mutation were randomized to receive ivacaftor (Kalydeco™; also known as VX-770) in four doses or placebo twice daily for at least 14 days. All data were analyzed by a single investigator who was blinded to treatment assignment. We compared three analysis methods to determine the best approach to quantify changes in chloride and sodium transport: (1) the average of both nostrils; (2) the most-polarized nostril at each visit; and (3) the most-polarized nostril at screening carried forward. Parameters of ion transport included the PD change with zero chloride plus isoproterenol (CFTR activity), the basal PD, Ringer's PD, and change in PD with amiloride (measurements of ENaC activity), and the delta NPD (measuring CFTR and ENaC activity). The average and most-polarized nostril at each visit were most sensitive to changes in chloride and sodium transport, whereas the most-polarized nostril at screening carried forward was less discriminatory. Based on our findings, NPD studies should assess both nostrils rather than a single nostril. We also found that changes in CFTR activity were more readily detected than changes in ENaC activity, and that rigorous standardization was associated with relatively good within-subject reproducibility in placebo-treated subjects (± 2.8 mV). Therefore, we have confirmed an assay of reasonable reproducibility for detecting chloride-transport improvements in response to CFTR modulation.

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs aripiprazole among patients with schizophrenia who have previously failed on an atypical antipsychotic: an indirect comparison of outcomes from clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE: Compare long-term costs and outcomes of lurasidone to aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia in the US who previously failed ≥1 atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) based on an indirect comparison of outcomes data from clinical trials. METHODS: A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed to compare long-term effectiveness of lurasidone to aripiprazole, including total discontinuations, relapse rates, and hospitalization rates. Cost inputs included pharmacy, mental health, and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic risks (diabetes and cardiovascular [CV] events). Effectiveness inputs were derived from an indirect comparison of aripiprazole and lurasidone using common comparators from CATIE. Cardiometabolic risks were derived from claims data analysis for diabetes, weight change and CV events, and Framingham body mass index (BMI) risk equation. Cost inputs were derived from published sources and Red Book. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% and tested with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Over 5 years, total discounted costs for lurasidone and aripiprazole patients were $86,480 and $90,500, respectively. During this period, the number of relapses per patient, hospitalizations per patient, diabetes rates, and CV events per 1000 patients, respectively, were estimated to be lower for lurasidone (0.442, 0.245, 7.29%, and 37.3) than aripiprazole (0.478, 0.369, 7.36%, and 37.8). Results were sensitive to lurasidone and aripiprazole hospitalization rates. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per hospitalization avoided, lurasidone had a 100% probability of being more cost-effective than aripiprazole. LIMITATIONS: The model was based on results from various comparative clinical trials. Differences in patient population and study methods may change estimates from the model. The model does not account for patient heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this model, when switching from another atypical antipsychotic, lurasidone had fewer relapses and hospitalizations with a lower incidence of diabetes and CV events than aripiprazole. Additionally, lurasidone may be less costly than aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia.

Macrolides vs. quinolones for community-acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The relative efficacy, safety and ecological implications of macrolides vs. quinolones in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are debatable. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing any macrolide vs. any quinolone for the treatment of CAP among adult inpatients or outpatients, as monotherapy or both in combination with a beta-lactam. We did not limit inclusion by pneumonia severity, publication status, language or date of publication. The primary outcomes assessed were 30-day all-cause mortality and treatment failure. Two authors independently extracted the data. Fixed effect meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals was performed. Sixteen trials (4989 patients) fulfilling inclusion criteria were identified, mostly assessing outpatients with mild to moderate CAP. All-cause mortality was not significantly different for macrolides vs. quinolones, RR 1.03 (0.63-1.68, seven trials), with a low event rate (2%). Treatment failure was significantly lower with quinolones, RR 0.78 (0.67-0.91, 16 trials). The definition of failure used in the primary studies was not clearly representative of patients' benefit. Microbiological failure was lower with quinolones, RR 0.63 (0.49-0.81, 13 trials). All adverse events, adverse events requiring discontinuation and any premature antibiotic discontinuation were significantly more frequent with macrolides, mainly on account of gastrointestinal adverse events. Resistance development was not assessed in the trials. Randomized controlled trials show an advantage of quinolones in the treatment of CAP with regard to clinical cure without need for antibiotic modification at end of treatment and gastrointestinal adverse events. The clinical significance of this advantage is unclear.

Assessment of clinical response to ivacaftor with lung clearance index in cystic fibrosis patients with a G551D-CFTR mutation and preserved spirometry: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ivacaftor has shown a clinical benefit in patients with cystic fibrosis who have the G551D-CFTR mutation and reduced lung function. Lung clearance index (LCI) using multiple-breath washout might be an alternative to and more sensitive method than forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) to assess treatment response in the growing number of children and young adults with cystic fibrosis who have normal spirometry. The aim of the study was to assess the treatment effects of ivacaftor on LCI in patients with cystic fibrosis, a G551D-CFTR mutation, and an FEV1 >90% predicted. METHODS: This phase 2, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind 2×2 crossover study of ivacaftor treatment was conducted in patients with cystic fibrosis, at least one G551D-CFTR allele, and an FEV1 >90% predicted. Patients also had to have an LCI higher than 7·4 at screening, age of 6 years or older, and a weight higher than or equal to 15 kg. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to receive one of two treatment sequences (placebo first followed by ivacaftor 150 mg twice daily [sequence 1] or ivacaftor 150 mg twice daily first followed by placebo [sequence 2]) of 28 days' treatment in each period, with a 28-day washout between the two treatment periods. Randomisation (ratio 1:1) was done with block sizes of 4, and all site personnel including the investigator, the study monitor, and the Vertex study team were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in LCI. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01262352. FINDINGS: Between February and November, 2011, 21 patients were enrolled, of which 11 were assigned to the sequence 1 group, and 10 to the sequence 2 group. 20 of these patients received treatment and 17 completed the trial (eight in sequence 1 group and 9 in sequence 2 group). Treatment with ivacaftor led to significant improvements compared with placebo in LCI (difference between groups in the average of mean changes from baseline at days 15 and 29 was -2·16 [95% CI -2·88 to -1·44]; p<0·0001). Adverse events experienced by study participants were similar between treatment groups; at least one adverse event was reported by 15 (79%) of 19 patients who received placebo and 13 (72%) of 18 patients who received ivacaftor. No deaths occurred during study period. INTERPRETATION: In patients with cystic fibrosis aged 6 years or older who have at least one G551D-CFTR allele, ivacaftor led to improvements in LCI. LCI might be a more sensitive alternative to FEV1 in detecting response to intervention in these patients with mild lung disease. FUNDING: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Cost-effectiveness of adjunctive therapy with atypical antipsychotics for acute treatment of major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: While the clinical utility of atypical antipsychotics has been established in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who are refractory to antidepressant therapy, their cost-effectiveness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole, quetiapine, and olanzapine/fluoxetine in adults with MDD who are refractory to antidepressant therapy. METHODS: Using techniques of decision analysis, we estimated expected outcomes and costs over 6 weeks in adults with MDD receiving (1) aripiprazole 2-20 mg/day and antidepressant therapy; (2) quetiapine 150 mg/day or 300 mg/day and antidepressant therapy; (3) the fixed-dose combination of olanzapine 6, 12, or 18 mg/day with fluoxetine 50 mg/day; or (4) antidepressant therapy alone. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of the cost per additional responder at 6 weeks, defined as the ratio of the difference in the cost of MDD-related care over 6 weeks versus antidepressant therapy alone to the difference in the number of patients achieving clinical response by 6 weeks. We estimated the model using data from Phase 3 clinical trials of atypical antipsychotics along with other secondary data sources. RESULTS: With antidepressant therapy alone, the estimated clinical response rate at 6 weeks was 30%. Aripiprazole, quetiapine 150 mg/day, quetiapine 300 mg/day, and olanzapine/fluoxetine were estimated to increase clinical response at 6 weeks to 49%, 34%, 38%, and 45%, respectively. Costs of MDD-related care over 6 weeks were estimated to be $192 for antidepressant therapy, $847 for aripiprazole, $541 for quetiapine 150 mg/day, $672 for quetiapine 300 mg/day plus antidepressant therapy, and $791 for olanzapine/fluoxetine. Costs per additional responder (vs antidepressant therapy) over a 6-week period were estimated to be $3447 for aripiprazole, $8725 for quetiapine 150 mg/day, $6000 for quetiapine 300 mg/day, and $3993 for olanzapine/fluoxetine. CONCLUSIONS: Atypical antipsychotics substantially increase clinical response at 6 weeks. Cost per additional responder is lower for aripiprazole than for quetiapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine.

Metabolic effects and cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole versus olanzapine in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole versus olanzapine in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in Sweden with focus on the metabolic impact of the treatments. METHOD: A Markov health-state transition model was developed. The risks of developing metabolic syndrome after one year of treatment with aripiprazole or olanzapine were derived from a pooled analysis of three randomised clinical trials. The subsequent risks of developing diabetes or coronary heart disease were based on previously published risk models. A societal perspective was applied, adopting a lifetime horizon. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment with aripiprazole dominates over olanzapine in both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In schizophrenia, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were 0.08 and cost savings Swedish kronor (SEK) 30,570 (USD 4000); in bipolar disorder, QALYs gained were 0.09 and cost savings SEK 28,450 (USD 3720). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, aripiprazole resulted in a dominant outcome in 84% of cases in schizophrenia and in 77% of cases in bipolar syndrome. CONCLUSION: The significantly lower risk of developing metabolic syndrome observed with aripiprazole compared with olanzapine is associated with less risk of diabetes and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality that translates into lower overall treatment cost and improved quality of life over time.

Assessment of safety, tolerability and effectiveness of adjunctive aripiprazole to lithium/valproate in bipolar mania: a 46-week, open-label extension following a 6-week double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the long-term tolerability and effectiveness of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium or valproate in partial responders with bipolar mania. METHODS: Completers of a 6-week double-blind comparison of adjunctive aripiprazole versus placebo in bipolar mania partially responsive to lithium or valproate monotherapy could enter a 46-week extension treatment with open-label adjunctive aripiprazole plus lithium (ARI + LI) or valproate (ARI + VAL). Safety, efficacy and functioning were assessed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CN138-134LT: Study of Aripiprazole in Patients With Bipolar I Disorder; ID number: NCT00257972; registry: www.clinicaltrials.gov. RESULTS: In total, 283 (ARI + LI n = 108; ARI + VAL n = 175) patients entered and 146 (ARI + LI n = 55; ARI + VAL n = 91) completed the 46-week, open-label extension. Frequently reported adverse events (AEs) that occurred with ARI + LI vs. ARI + VAL were: tremor (17.0% vs. 12.1%), akathisia (6.6% vs. 8.6%), headache (6.6% vs. 4.0%), insomnia (9.4% vs. 10.3%), depression (7.5% vs. 9.2%) and weight increase (11.3% vs. 8.6%). Extrapyramidal symptom-related AEs occurred in 24 (22.6%) ARI + LI- and 38 (21.8%) ARI + VAL-treated patients, with eight discontinuations. The majority of new-onset events of akathisia and insomnia occurred early. Mean (SE) weight change from double-blind endpoint to Week 46 (LOCF) was 2.3 (0.6) kg with ARI + LI and 2.0 (0.4) kg with ARI + VAL. Significant improvements from baseline over the 52 weeks (LOCF) occurred with ARI + LI and ARI + VAL on mean (95%CI) YMRS total score (-16.5 [-18.1; -14.8] and -17.6 [-18.9; -16.3], both p < 0.001 vs. baseline) and MADRS total score (-1.7 [-3.3; -0.1], p < 0.05 vs. baseline vs. -2.7 [-4.0; -1.4], p < 0.001 vs. baseline). Over the 46-week extension, continued aripiprazole provided continued YMRS improvement with ARI + LI (-2.9) and ARI + VAL (-3.3), while mean MADRS total changes were +1.1 and +1.0, respectively, and LIFE-RIFT changes were 0.2 and -0.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium/valproate in bipolar mania was safe and well tolerated. Improvements in manic symptoms and functioning were maintained. Aripiprazole, adjunctive to either lithium or valproate, appeared to be equally safe and effective combinations for the treatment of bipolar disorder. LIMITATIONS: As an open-label extension study with a low completion rate, a conservative interpretation of the findings is warranted. Additionally, the study population was not randomly selected but chosen at the discretion of the investigator, and patients did not maintain therapeutic levels of their mood stabiliser consistently.

Evidence-based use of second-generation antipsychotics in a state Medicaid pediatric population, 2001-2005.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify children in a state Medicaid population who were newly treated with second-generation antipsychotics from 2001 through 2005, to classify each use of these agents as evidence based or not depending on the child's diagnoses, and to identify factors associated with the likelihood of evidence-based use of the medication. METHODS: A Medicaid claims database was used to retrospectively identify enrollees receiving initial outpatient treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic between 2001 and 2005. To capture all relevant treatments and diagnoses, claims were examined from January 2000 through December 2006. The final sample included 11,700 children under age 18. The primary measure of interest was the proportion for whom use of the antipsychotic was based on evidence. Evidence-based use (categorized as strong, plausible, or weak evidence) was defined as any use of the agent for a diagnosis supported by a clinical trial published before the end of 2005. Trend analysis and logistic regression were used. RESULTS: The number of children newly treated with second-generation antipsychotics increased from 1,482 in 2001 to 3,110 in 2005. Of the new users of these agents during the study period, 41.3% had no diagnosis for which such treatment was supported by a published study. The medication with the highest level of non-evidence-based use was aripiprazole (77.1%), and risperidone had the lowest (30.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The number of children receiving second-generation antipsychotics doubled in this Medicaid population between 2001 and 2005, and a large proportion of the treatments were not supported by evidence from clinical studies.