Abuse Potential Study of ALO-02 (Extended-Release Oxycodone Surrounding Sequestered Naltrexone) Compared with Immediate-Release Oxycodone Administered Orally to Nondependent Recreational Opioid Users.

Objective: To evaluate the abuse potential of ALO-02, an abuse-deterrent formulation comprising pellets of extended-release oxycodone hydrochloride surrounding sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-/active-controlled, 6-way crossover study, with naloxone challenge, drug discrimination, and treatment phases. Subjects: Nondependent, recreational opioid users. Methods: Oral administration of crushed and intact ALO-02, crushed immediate-release (IR) oxycodone, and placebo. Primary endpoints were Drug Liking and High measured on visual analog scales and reported as maximum effect (E max ) and area-under-the-effect-curve from 0 to 2 hours (AUE 0-2h ). Other pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic and safety assessments were included. Results: Drug Liking and High (E max ) for crushed oxycodone IR 40 mg were significantly higher compared with placebo, confirming study validity ( P < 0.0001). Drug Liking and High (E max, AUE 0-2h ) for crushed ALO-02 (40 mg/4.8 mg and 60 mg/7.2 mg) were significantly lower compared to corresponding doses of crushed oxycodone IR (40 and 60 mg; P < 0.0001). Likewise, Drug Liking and High (E max and AUE 0-2h ) for intact ALO-02 60 mg/7.2 mg were significantly lower compared with crushed oxycodone IR 60 mg ( P < 0.0001). Secondary pharmacodynamic endpoints and plasma concentrations of oxycodone and naltrexone were consistent with these results. Fewer participants experienced adverse events (AEs) after ALO-02 (crushed or intact: 71.1-91.9%) compared with crushed oxycodone IR (100%). Most common AEs following crushed ALO-02 and oxycodone IR were euphoric mood, pruritus, somnolence, and dizziness. Conclusions: The results suggest that ALO-02 (crushed or intact) has lower abuse potential than crushed oxycodone IR when administered orally in nondependent, recreational opioid users.

Intravenous abuse potential study of oxycodone alone or in combination with naltrexone in nondependent recreational opioid users.

BACKGROUND: ALO-02, comprising pellets of extended-release oxycodone surrounding sequestered naltrexone, is intended to deter abuse. OBJECTIVE: Determine the abuse potential of intravenous oxycodone combined with naltrexone, which represents simulated crushed ALO-02 in solution, compared with intravenous oxycodone in nondependent, recreational opioid users. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study with naloxone challenge, drug discrimination, and treatment phases. Intravenous treatments included oxycodone hydrochloride 20 mg, oxycodone hydrochloride 20 mg plus naltrexone hydrochloride 2.4 mg (simulated crushed ALO-02 20 mg/2.4 mg), or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride for injection). Primary end points were peak effects (Emax) and area under the effects curve within 2 h postdose (AUE0-2h) on drug liking and high visual analog scales. RESULTS: Thirty-three participants were randomized into treatment phase, and 29 completed all treatments. Study validity was confirmed with statistically significant differences in Emax for drug liking and high (p < 0.0001) between intravenous oxycodone and placebo. Intravenous simulated crushed ALO-02 resulted in significantly lower scores than oxycodone on drug liking (Emax: 58.2 vs. 92.4; AUE0-2h: 104.3 vs. 152.4) and high (Emax: 17.2 vs. 93.1; AUE0-2h: 12.0 vs. 133.6), respectively (p < 0.0001, all comparisons). More participants experienced adverse events after intravenous oxycodone (n = 27 [90%]) versus intravenous simulated crushed ALO-02 (n = 4 [12.5%]) or placebo (n = 2 [6.5%]). CONCLUSION: Intravenous administration of simulated crushed ALO-02 resulted in significantly lower abuse potential, as assessed by subjective ratings of drug liking and high, than intravenous oxycodone in nondependent, recreational opioid users. This suggests that injection of ALO-02 may not be as desirable to recreational opioid users compared with oxycodone taken for nonmedical reasons.

Safety and effectiveness of long-term treatment with diazepam auto-injector administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting for the treatment of acute repetitive seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Part 1 of this phase III study was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of caregiver administered diazepam auto-injector (AI) in subjects with acute repetitive seizures (ARS) and demonstrated that diazepam AI was well-tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo AI in delaying the time to next seizure or rescue. Part 2 of this study, presented herein, was an open-label continuation to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of diazepam AI for the treatment of ARS. METHODS: Of the 234 subjects randomized in part 1, 161 continued into part 2 and were provided open-label diazepam AI. Effectiveness measures were time to next seizure or rescue, number of subsequent rescues by type (rescue medication, emergency room visit, or other medical care), and number of subsequent seizures during the 12-h follow-up period. Safety data (adverse events and respirations <8/min) were also collected. RESULTS: During the open-label part 2 study, 129 subjects were administered a total of 1,380 diazepam AI treatments (median 4.5; range 1-118), of which 1,071 (77.6%) were effective with no subsequent seizure or rescue during the 12-h follow-up period. Median number of subsequent seizures experienced by subjects was one (range 0-20). Of the 1,380 administrations, 79 (5.7%) required use of rescue medication, 18 (1.3%) required a visit to an emergency room, and 6 (0.4%) required other rescue medical care. In most (75%) of subjects with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Commonly reported treatment-related TEAEs were injection-site pain (10.9%), injection-site hemorrhage (7%), and injection-site bruising (6.3%). Although three subjects met the predefined respiratory rate threshold, none were considered clinically significant or reported as AEs. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term treatment with diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers in an outpatient setting to treat ARS is a safe and effective option. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

Effects of concurrent intravenous morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride on end-tidal carbon dioxide.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory depression, a potentially fatal side-effect of opioid-overdose, may be reversed by timely administration of an opioid antagonist, such as naloxone or naltrexone. Tampering with a formulation of morphine sulfate and sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride extended release capsules (MS-sNT) releases both the opioid morphine and the antagonist naltrexone. A study in recreational opioid-users indicated that morphine and naltrexone injected in the 25:1 ratio (duplicating the ratio of the formulation) found MS-sNT reduced morphine-induced euphoric effects vs intravenous (IV) morphine alone. In the same study, the effects of morphine + naltrexone on end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), a measure of respiratory-depression, were evaluated and these data are reported here. METHODS: Single-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study. Non-dependent male opioid users were randomized to receive single IV doses of placebo, 30 mg morphine alone, and 30 mg morphine + 1.2 mg naltrexone. EtCO2 was measured by noninvasive capnography. RESULTS: Significant differences in EtCO2 least-squares means across all treatments for maximal effect (Emax) and area under the effect curve (AUE0-2, AUE0-8, AUE0-24) were detected (all p ≤ 0.0011). EtCO2 Emax values for morphine + naltrexone were significantly reduced vs morphine alone (42.9 mm Hg vs 47.1 mm Hg, p < 0.0001) and were not significantly different vs placebo (41.9 mm Hg). Median time to reach maximal effect (TEmax) was delayed for morphine + naltrexone vs morphine alone (5.0 h vs 1.0 h). CONCLUSIONS: Results provide preliminary evidence that the naltrexone:morphine ratio within MS-sNT is sufficient to significantly reduce EtCO2 when administered intravenously to non-dependent male recreational opioid-users. Further studies with multiple measures of respiratory-function are warranted to determine if risk of respiratory depression is also reduced by naltrexone in the tampered formulation.

Extended-release morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride (EMBEDA): naltrexone-associated withdrawal and abuse-related effects in patients with chronic pain and recreational opioid users.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of naltrexone on withdrawal-related adverse events (AEs) and euphoria-related effects, and the relationship between plasma naltrexone concentrations and withdrawal across EMBEDA (MSN; extended-release morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone) studies. METHODS: Five studies in pain patients and a safety review summarizing AE reports during the first year following approval of MSN were assessed for withdrawal reports. Three of these studies also assessed Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores. Plasma naltrexone concentrations of MSN-treated individuals were summarized. Abuse potential was assessed in four studies in non-dependent recreational opioid users. RESULTS: Withdrawal AEs occurred in 13/1781 patients across five MSN studies, and 25/182 cases involving withdrawal were reported in the safety review. In three of these studies, 11/964 patients experienced moderate withdrawal (COWS score = 13-24) and 1/964 patients experienced moderately severe withdrawal (score = 28); all were either non-compliant with study drug, had undetectable plasma naltrexone concentrations, or were tapering to placebo. In ≥89% of plasma naltrexone concentration samples from patients who took MSN (n = 166), naltrexone was below the limit of quantification (4.0 pg/mL). In four studies with non-dependent recreational opioid users (n = 118), crushed MSN was associated with significantly lower scores of drug liking, high, and take drug again than crushed morphine sulfate (p ≤ 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: When taken intact as directed, naltrexone in MSN does not precipitate withdrawal. However, when MSN is crushed, naltrexone mitigates, but does not eliminate, the euphorigenic effects of crushed morphine sulfate.

Efficacy of rotigotine transdermal system in severe restless legs syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, six-week dose-finding trial in Europe.

BACKGROUND: In a pilot placebo-controlled study, low dosages of 0.5-2mg/24h rotigotine showed a dose-dependent beneficial effect in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients. METHODS: Efficacy and safety of the dopamine agonist rotigotine, formulated as a once-daily transdermal system (patch), was investigated for five fixed dosages and compared to placebo in patients with idiopathic RLS in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, six-week dose-finding trial. Primary efficacy measure was the total score of the International RLS Severity Scale (IRLS); in addition, the RLS-6 scales and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) were administered. RESULTS: Of 371 enrolled patients, 341 patients (mean age 58+/-10years, 67% females) were randomized. The IRLS total score improved between baseline and end of the six-week treatment period by -10.6 (0.5mg/24h rotigotine; patch area 2.5cm2), -15.1 (1mg/24h; 5cm2), -15.7 (2mg/24h; 10cm2), -17.5 (3mg/24h; 15cm2), and -14.8 (4mg/24h, 20cm2) as compared to placebo (-9.2). The hierarchical statistical test procedure demonstrated superiority of rotigotine over placebo for 4mg/24h, 3mg/24h, 2mg/24h, and 1mg/24h, with p-values of 0.0013, <0.0001, 0.0003, and 0.0004, respectively. Only the 0.5mg/24h dose was not different compared to placebo (p=0.2338). The CGI and the RLS-6 severity items supported the efficacy of the rotigotine doses beyond 0.5mg/24h. The most frequent side effects were application site reactions and nausea and tended to be more frequent with higher doses. CONCLUSIONS: This dose-finding trial identified the range for a maintenance dose of rotigotine from 1mg/24h to 3mg/24h. The lowest dose was ineffective and, with the highest dose, no additional benefit was observed.

Prescription opioid abuse and misuse: gap between primary-care investigator assessment and actual extent of these behaviors among patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of two open-label primary care-based studies that examined investigator assessment of patient risk for prescription opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion relative to patient self-reports and urine drug tests (UDTs). METHODS: Risk assessment data from two open-label, multicenter, primary care-based US studies in patients with chronic pain were compared. RESULTS: In one study (n = 1487), 54.4% of patients were at moderate, 24.8% at high, and 20.8% at low risk based on patients' self-reports at baseline on the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain®-Revised questionnaire. Investigators assigned 1.3% of patients as high risk despite 5.0% self-reporting prior illicit drug use and 15.3% with positive UDT(s) for an illicit drug at baseline. In the second study (n = 684), few patients were considered by investigators to be at high risk for misuse (1.6%), abuse (1.8%), or diversion (1.0%). However, 10.4% of patients reported prior illicit drug use; 23.4% had at least one abnormal baseline UDT; 60% of 537 patients reported on the Self-Reported Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion questionnaire they took more opioids than prescribed; and 10.9% reported chewing/crushing opioids in the past. Of patients completing the Current Opioid Misuse Measure, 40.6% were classified as having aberrant behaviors. CONCLUSION: A comparison of risk assessment across two studies indicates a tendency for investigators to assess patients as lower risk for opioid-related aberrant behaviors despite a significant proportion self-reporting aberrant behavior and/or presenting with illicit UDTs. These consistent findings underline the importance of appropriate implementation of objective measures and self-reporting tools when evaluating risk in patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00640042 and NCT01179191.

Bioequivalence in development of antiepileptic drugs.

Bioequivalence is an important component of the development of AEDs. Development of new formulations after the original testing of any drug requires demonstration that the compounds are therapeutically equivalent and additional efficacy studies may not be required. Extended-release formulations may reduce toxicity with a lower maximum blood concentration (C(max)) and improve efficacy with a higher minimum blood concentration (C(min)). Obtaining an equivalent area under the curve (AUC) while slowing the gastrointestinal transit and avoiding food effects and dose dumping among a population with epilepsy with individual variability requires extensive engineering of the formulation. The development of extended release divalproex (Depakote ER) is used as an example of the challenges of this phase of drug development. Other routes of administration discussed are rectal preparations, nasal formulations, and intravenous infusions. These newer formulations may offer better patient care and more efficient development.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of continuous transdermal dopaminergic stimulation with rotigotine patch in early-stage idiopathic Parkinson disease.

Rotigotine is a new dopamine agonist with transdermal patch formulation for the treatment of Parkinson disease. The aim of this study was to investigate safety and efficacy of rotigotine in patients with early-stage Parkinson disease. In this open-label, dose-escalation, safety and efficacy study, 31 patients in the early stages of idiopathic Parkinson disease received rotigotine to a maximum of 18.0 mg/day. Of the 29 patients who completed the 28-day treatment phase, 24 were maintained at the maximum dose level. The drug was well tolerated, and skin reactions were mild. A statistically significant improvement in UPDRS I, II, and III scores was observed from baseline to end of treatment for the 29 subjects who completed the trial. Mean improvement (+/- standard deviation) was -0.41 +/- 0.78 on UPDRS I (P = 0.0078), -2.76 +/- 3.31 on UPDRS II (P = 0.0001), and -4.62 +/- 5.32 on UPDRS III (P < 0.0001). When results were stratified by maximum dose achieved, significant improvements were seen on all 3 subscores for patients achieving the maximum dose. These data suggest that rotigotine is a safe, well-tolerated, and effective treatment for early-stage Parkinson disease.

A multicenter, primary care-based, open-label study to identify behaviors related to prescription opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion in opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the investigator assessment of patient risk for prescription opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion with patient self-reports of these activities in a population with chronic pain. METHODS: As a secondary objective of an open-label, multicenter, primary care-based clinical study to evaluate the success of converting opioid-experienced patients with chronic pain to morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride, risk for misuse, abuse, and diversion was assessed using two nonvalidated questionnaires: one was completed by the investigator and another by the patient (Self-Reported Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion [SR-MAD]). In addition, the validated Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) test and urine drug test were used. RESULTS: Of the 684 patients assessed by the investigators, 537 returned the self-assessment, SR-MAD. Most patients were assigned by the investigator as low risk for misuse (84.2%), abuse (89.3%), and diversion (94.3%). Of the patients who returned SR-MAD, 60% indicated having taken more opioids than prescribed and 10.9% reported chewing or crushing their opioids in the past. Of the patients who completed COMM, 40.6% were deemed as having aberrant behaviors. COMM results correlated with the risk levels from the investigator assessment. One-third of patients (33.8%) had at least one abnormal urine drug test result. CONCLUSION: More research is needed to better understand the gap between the investigator assessment of potential risk for misuse, abuse, and diversion and the actual extent of these behaviors among patients with chronic pain.

A multicenter, primary-care-based, open-label study to assess the success of converting opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain to morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride extended-release capsules using a standardized conversion guide.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the conversion of opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain to extended-release morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride (MSN) using a standardized conversion guide. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm study was conducted in 157 primary care centers in the United States. A total of 684 opioid-experienced adults with chronic moderate-to-severe pain were converted to oral administration of MSN from transdermal fentanyl and oral formulations of hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and other morphine products using a standardized conversion guide. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a stable MSN dose within a 6-week titration phase. Secondary endpoints included duration of time to stable dose, number of titration steps, safety and efficacy measures, and investigator assessment of conversion guide utility. RESULTS: Of the 684 patients, 51.3% were converted to a stable dose of MSN (95% confidence interval: 47.5%, 55.1%). The mean (standard deviation) number of days to stable dose was 20 (8.94), and number of titration steps to stable dose was 2.4 (1.37). The majority of adverse events were mild/moderate and consistent with opioid therapy. Mean pain scores at stable dose decreased from baseline. Investigators were generally satisfied with the conversion guide and, in 94% of cases, reported they would use it again. CONCLUSION: Conversion to MSN treatment using the standardized MSN conversion guide was an attainable goal in approximately half of the population of opioid-experienced patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain. Investigators found the guide to be a useful tool to assist conversion of opioid-experienced patients to MSN.

Intranasal administration of crushed ALO-02 (extended-release oxycodone with sequestered naltrexone): A randomized, controlled abuse-potential study in nondependent recreational opioid users.

ALO-02 is an abuse-deterrent formulation consisting of capsules filled with pellets of extended-release oxycodone surrounding sequestered naltrexone. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-/active-controlled, 4-way crossover study examined the abuse potential of crushed ALO-02 administered intranasally to healthy, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Following drug discrimination and naloxone challenge, eligible participants (n = 32) entered a 4-way crossover treatment phase: crushed single dose of 1 of 2 placebos, ALO-02 30 mg/3.6 mg (oxycodone/naltrexone) or oxycodone immediate-release (IR) 30 mg. Primary end points were Drug Liking and High, measured on visual analog scales (VAS) summarized as maximum effect (Emax ) and effect occurring over 2 hours postdose (AUE0-2 h ). Crushed ALO-02 resulted in significantly lower scores versus oxycodone IR on Drug Liking (Emax , 60.5 vs 92.8; AUE0-2 h , 105.4 vs 160.0, respectively) and High (Emax , 25.2 vs 86.9; AUE0-2 h , 27.1 vs 136.4, respectively; n = 28; P < .0001). Adverse events occurred most frequently with oxycodone IR, followed by ALO-02, then placebo, and were considered mild and consistent with opioid therapy. Crushed ALO-02 administered intranasally to nondependent recreational opioid users resulted in significantly lower scores on Drug Liking/High VAS and other positive subjective measures versus crushed oxycodone IR, suggesting less abuse potential. Demonstration of actual abuse deterrence in the real world requires further research.

A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of ALO-02 (extended-release oxycodone surrounding sequestered naltrexone) for moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain treatment.

The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ALO-02, an abuse-deterrent formulation containing pellets of extended-release oxycodone hydrochloride (HCl) surrounding sequestered naltrexone HCl, compared with placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain. An open-label titration period in which all patients received ALO-02 was followed by a double-blind treatment period where patients meeting treatment response criteria were randomized to either a fixed dose of ALO-02 or placebo. Daily average low back pain was assessed using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS)-Pain. Of the 663 patients screened, 410 received ALO-02 during the open-label conversion and titration period and 281 patients were randomized to the double-blind treatment period (n = 134, placebo; n = 147, ALO-02). Change in the mean NRS-Pain score from randomization baseline to the final 2 weeks of the treatment period was significantly different favoring ALO-02 compared with placebo (P = 0.0114). Forty-four percent of patients treated with placebo and 57.5% of patients treated with ALO-02 reported ≥30% improvement in weekly average NRS-Pain scores from screening to the final 2 weeks of the treatment period (P = 0.0248). In the double-blind treatment period, 56.8% of patients in the ALO-02 group and 56.0% of patients in the placebo group experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common treatment-related TEAEs for ALO-02 during the treatment period were nausea, vomiting, and constipation, consistent with opioid therapy. ALO-02 has been demonstrated to provide significant reduction of pain in patients with chronic low back pain and has a safety profile similar to other opioids.

Divalproex in the treatment of impulsive aggression: efficacy in cluster B personality disorders.

Impulsive aggressive behavior is common in psychiatric disorders and accounts for significant morbidity and mortality. However, little systematic treatment data exist from placebo-controlled trials for this symptom domain. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which outpatients with a score of > or =15 on the Aggression scale of the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified (OAS-M) and who fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for Cluster B personality disorder (n=96), intermittent explosive disorder (n=116), or post-traumatic stress disorder (n=34) were randomized to divalproex sodium or placebo for 12 weeks duration. Based on average OAS-M Aggression scores over the last 4 weeks of treatment, a treatment effect was not observed in the intent-to-treat data set (combined across the three psychiatric disorders), but was observed in both intent-to-treat and evaluable data sets for patients with Cluster B personality disorders. In the Cluster B evaluable data set, statistically significant treatment differences favoring divalproex were also observed for component items of the OAS-M Aggression score, including verbal assault and assault against objects, as well as OAS-M Irritability score, and Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity at multiple time points throughout the study. No treatment group difference was noted for overall premature discontinuation rate; however, across psychiatric diagnoses, 21 (17%) patients in the divalproex group prematurely discontinued because of an adverse event, as compared to 4 (3%) patients in the placebo group (p <0.001). While a treatment effect was not observed when all diagnostic groups were combined, in a large subgroup of patients with Cluster B disorders, divalproex was superior to placebo in the treatment of impulsive aggression, irritability, and global severity.

Effect of divalproex combined with olanzapine or risperidone in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

This double-blind, randomized, multicenter study investigated the use of divalproex with an antipsychotic agent in patients hospitalized for acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Patients (n = 249) who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine monotherapy, risperidone monotherapy, divalproex plus olanzapine, or divalproex plus risperidone for 28 days. Divalproex was initiated at 15 mg/kg/day and titrated over 12 days to a maximum dosage of 30 mg/kg/day. Olanzapine and risperidone, were, respectively, initiated at 5 and 2 mg/day and were titrated over the first 6 days to respective target fixed daily dosages of 15 and 6 mg/day. Improvements from baseline were observed at all evaluation points throughout the 28-day treatment period in the two combination therapy and the two antipsychotic monotherapy groups, with statistically significant treatment differences favoring combination therapy as soon as day 3 for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, derived Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRSd) total score, as well as PANSS and BPRSd subscales. These findings were confirmed in post hoc repeated-measures analyses of variance in which treatment differences favoring combination therapy were observed for PANSS total (p = 0.020) and PANSS positive scale scores (p = 0.002). Both combination therapy and antipsychotic monotherapy were well tolerated. Treatment with divalproex in combination with an atypical antipsychotic agent resulted in earlier improvements in a range of psychotic symptoms among acutely hospitalized patients with schizophrenia. Further evaluation is warranted to confirm these findings.

Divalproex sodium versus olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder: health-related quality of life and medical cost outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Divalproex sodium is a mood stabilizer used in the United States for the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder. Recently, olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, was approved for the treatment of acute mania. This study compares the clinical, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and economic outcomes of divalproex and olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder. METHOD: This 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial included 120 subjects with DSM-IV bipolar disorder type I hospitalized for an acute manic episode recruited from 21 U.S. clinical centers. Subjects were randomly assigned to treatment with either divalproex or olanzapine and were followed in hospital for up to 21 days. If after 21 days clinical improvements (based on the Mania Rating Scale [MRS]) were not observed, subjects were discontinued. Subjects showing clinical improvement were treated for up to 12 weeks. HRQL was assessed using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) after hospital discharge (baseline) and at 6 and 12 weeks. Medical resource use and costs were collected over the 12-week study. RESULTS: A total of 120 subjects (N = 63 divalproex, N = 57 olanzapine) were randomized, and 78 (65%) were followed beyond 21 days. No statistically significant differences between the treatment groups for baseline-to-endpoint MRS or Q-LES-Q scores were observed. Total 12-week outpatient medical costs were significantly lower for the divalproex-treated group (541 US dollars) compared with the olanzapine-treated group (1080 US dollars) (p =.004). There was no significant difference in total medical costs between the 2 groups (divalproex = 13,703 US dollars; olanzapine = 15,180 US dollars; p =.88). CONCLUSION: Divalproex is associated with lower 12-week outpatient costs compared with olanzapine. Divalproex and olanzapine have similar short-term effects on clinical or HRQL outcomes in bipolar disorder subjects.

The safety and early efficacy of oral-loaded divalproex versus standard-titration divalproex, lithium, olanzapine, and placebo in the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have examined the safety and tolerability of oral-loaded divalproex sodium in the treatment of acute mania, but not the early efficacy of this dosing strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the early efficacy of oral-loaded divalproex. METHOD: In this pooled analysis, 348 subjects from 3 randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active- or placebo-controlled studies were used to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oral-loaded divalproex with standard-titration divalproex, lithium, olanzapine, or placebo. Subjects were inpatients diagnosed with acute mania associated with bipolar I disorder (DSM-III-R or -IV and SADS-Change Version). Patients were administered oral-loaded divalproex (20 or 30 mg/kg/day on days 1 and 2 followed by 20 mg/kg/day, and increased at physician's discretion), standard-titration divalproex initiated at 250 mg t.i.d. and titrated to 40-150 microg/mL, lithium (300 mg t.i.d. initial dose) titrated to 0.4 to 1.5 mEq/L, olanzapine (10 mg q.d. initial dose) up to 20 mg/day, or placebo. RESULTS: The results demonstrate an early efficacy advantage for oral-loaded divalproex compared to standard-titration divalproex at days 5, 7/8, and 10. Efficacy was improved over lithium on day 7/8. There were no efficacy differences between divalproex loading and olanzapine. Divalproex loading showed greater efficacy than placebo at all time points. Divalproex loading was as well tolerated or better tolerated than the other active treatments as measured by adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters. CONCLUSION: These results suggest the oral loading of divalproex leads to a more rapid antimanic effect when compared with standard-titration divalproex, lithium, or placebo and is better tolerated than olanzapine and as well tolerated as lithium or standard-titration divalproex.

A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of divalproex sodium and olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of divalproex and olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder. METHOD: This randomized, 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study included DSM-IV-defined bipolar disorder type I patients hospitalized for acute mania and randomly assigned to treatment with divalproex or olanzapine. After an inpatient period of up to 21 days, subjects were followed as outpatients. Dose adjustment was permitted during the inpatient period. Efficacy was assessed using change from baseline in Mania Rating Scale (MRS) score to day 21; other efficacy measures included the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Clinical Global Impressions-Part I, Severity of Illness scale. The primary safety endpoint was change from baseline in weight. Other safety and tolerability endpoints included spontaneous adverse event reporting and changes from baseline in laboratory measures and vital signs. RESULTS: 120 subjects (N = 63 divalproex, N = 57 olanzapine) were randomly assigned to treatment. No significant differences between groups were found for any efficacy variable for change from baseline to day 21. Mean MRS score changes from baseline to day 21 were -14.8 for divalproex and -17.2 for olanzapine (p =.210). A significantly (p <.05) greater proportion of olanzapine-treated subjects experienced somnolence, weight gain, edema, rhinitis, and speech disorder (slurred speech); no adverse events were significantly greater in the divalproex group. A number of laboratory measures also demonstrated significant treatment differences, but the clinical significance of many of these is uncertain. Mean body weight changes were significantly greater in the olanzapine group (+ 8.8 lb [+ 4.0 kg]) than the divalproex group (+ 5.5 lb [+ 2.5 kg], p <.050). One death occurred during the study (olanzapine group, diabetic ketoacidosis). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in efficacy was found between treatment groups. Divalproex was associated with a more favorable adverse event profile and significantly less weight gain than olanzapine.

Divalproex extended-release versus the original divalproex tablet: results of a randomized, crossover study of well-controlled epileptic patients with primary generalized seizures.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of two formulations of divalproex, extended-release divalproex versus the original divalproex tablet, in adolescent and adult patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Eligible patients were between the ages of 12 and 65 years with primary generalized epilepsy, which was controlled over the month prior to study enrollment with divalproex or valproic acid 1000 mg to 2000 mg/day. The patients were well-controlled; 39 of 43 (91%) had no seizures in the previous year. Patients were randomized to receive 84 days of either divalproex two times a day (b.i.d.)/three times a day (t.i.d.) or extended-release divalproex qd and then (crossed over to) 84 days of the comparator formulation. During the two treatment periods, patients received the same daily dose equivalent of divalproex as was taken during the month prior to study entry. The clinical status of patients was evaluated at a screening visit and at four subsequent visits conducted every 42 days. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the formulation groups for seizure control rate (95% [41/43] for divalproex and 93% [40/43] for extended-release divalproex). Likewise, the formulation groups were similar based on the incidence of treatment-related adverse events. The most frequently reported (< or =11.4% for either formulation) treatment-related adverse events were asthenia, tremor, nausea, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: Extended-release divalproex was similar to divalproex for the treatment of well-controlled, primary generalized epilepsy in terms of overall safety and efficacy parameters.

Comparison of the bioavailability of unequal doses of divalproex sodium extended-release formulation relative to the delayed-release formulation in healthy volunteers.

Valproate formulations, divalproex sodium extended-release (ER) and the traditional divalproex sodium delayed-release (DR) formulations, are not bioequivalent. This study evaluated if ER QD regimens with 14 and 20% higher daily doses were equivalent to the corresponding DR BID regimens with respect to exposure (AUC) while achieving lower maximum concentration (C(max)) and higher minimum concentration (C(min)) values. This was a Phase I, multiple-dose, fasting, randomized, open-label, crossover design study in healthy adult volunteers (n=36). The two crossover comparisons of unequal total daily doses were: 1000 mg ER versus 875 mg DR and 1500 mg ER versus 1250 mg DR. For each of 14 and 20% higher ER versus DR dose comparisons, the ER and DR regimens were equivalent with respect to AUC. Furthermore, the ER formulation achieved a lower C(max) central value and a higher C(min) mean than the corresponding values for the DR formulation. The mean peak-to-trough fluctuations of valproic acid plasma concentrations were 42-48% lower for the ER formulation compared with the DR. The higher ER doses were as well tolerated as DR, with a small number of adverse events that were non-serious in nature and mild in intensity. Therefore, increasing the once-daily ER dose 14-20% while converting from a total daily DR dose given twice-daily results in equivalent exposure with lower C(max) and higher C(min) values.