Considerations on implementation of the newest treatment for symptomatic uterine fibroids: Oral GnRH antagonists.

Novel gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist treatments have recently been developed in combination with hormonal add-back therapy, as an oral treatment option for women suffering from uterine fibroids. Registration trials assessing the GnRH antagonist combination preparations with relugolix, elagolix and linzagolix have assessed treatment efficacy for fibroid-related heavy menstrual blood loss in comparison to placebo. Marketing authorization has been granted by several agencies including those in Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. While the registration trials report a robust effect on the reduction of heavy menstrual blood loss and improvement in quality of life scores, reticence is advised before widespread prescription. In this review, we demonstrate limitations in the trial data, namely a lack of generalizability due to the restricted study population, the lack of transparency in the distribution of disease-level characteristics limiting the predictability of treatment success in the real-world diverse population, and the absence of any comparison to current alternative treatment methods. Importantly, no clinically meaningful volume reductions were found with GnRH antagonist combination preparations, and long-term safety data, particularly concerning modest but stable bone mineral density decline, need further addressing. Symptoms related to uterine fibroids adversely affect many women's quality of life and effective medical treatments are lacking. However, despite the urgent need for conservative treatments, it is vitally important that novel drugs, like combination oral GnRH antagonists, undergo sufficiently rigorous evaluation of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a representative population and are compared with alternative treatment methods before introduction into mainstream clinical practice.

Association of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 metabolizer status with switching and discontinuing antidepressant drugs: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Tailoring antidepressant drugs (AD) to patients' genetic drug-metabolism profile is promising. However, literature regarding associations of ADs' treatment effect and/or side effects with drug metabolizing genes CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 has yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, our aim was to longitudinally investigate associations between CYP2D6 (poor, intermediate, and normal) and CYP2C19 (poor, intermediate, normal, and ultrarapid) metabolizer-status, and switching/discontinuing of ADs. Next, we investigated whether the number of perceived side effects differed between metabolizer statuses. METHODS: Data came from the multi-site naturalistic longitudinal cohort Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). We selected depression- and/or anxiety patients, who used AD at some point in the course of the 9 years follow-up period (n = 928). Medication use was followed to assess patterns of AD switching/discontinuation over time. CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 alleles were derived using genome-wide data of the NESDA samples and haplotype data from the PharmGKB database. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the association of metabolizer status with switching/discontinuing ADs. Mann-Whitney U-tests were conducted to compare the number of patient-perceived side effects between metabolizer statuses. RESULTS: No significant associations were observed of CYP metabolizer status with switching/discontinuing ADs, nor with the number of perceived side effects. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for associations between CYP metabolizer statuses and switching/discontinuing AD, nor with side effects of ADs, suggesting that metabolizer status only plays a limited role in switching/discontinuing ADs. Additional studies with larger numbers of PM and UM patients are needed to further determine the potential added value of pharmacogenetics to guide pharmacotherapy.

Methylphenidate dose-response in children with ADHD: evidence from a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled titration trial.

Methylphenidate (MPH) is highly efficacious in reducing symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. Generally increased doses are found to result in better symptom control; however, it remains unclear whether this pattern can be observed at the individual level, given the large heterogeneity in individual dose-response relationships and observed placebo responses. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over trial was used to compare weekly treatment with placebo and 5, 10, 15 and 20 mg of MPH twice daily on parent and teacher ratings of child ADHD symptoms and side effects. Participants were 5-13-year-old children with a DSM-5 diagnosis of ADHD (N = 45). MPH response was assessed at group and individual levels and predictors of individual dose-response curves were examined. Mixed model analysis showed positive linear dose-response curves at group level for parent and teacher rated ADHD symptoms and parent rated side effects, but not for teacher rated side effects. Teachers reported all dosages to improve ADHD symptoms compared to placebo, while parents only reported > 5 mg/dose as effective. At the individual level, most (73-88%) children, but not all, showed positive linear dose-response curves. Higher severity of hyperactive-impulsive symptoms and lower internalizing problems, lower weight, younger age and more positive opinions towards diagnosis and medication partly predicted steeper linear individual dose-response curves. Our study confirms that increased doses of MPH yield greater symptom control at a group level. However, large interindividual variation in the dose-response relationship was found and increased doses did not lead to greater symptom improvement for all children. This trial was registered in the Netherlands trial register (# NL8121).

Efficacy and safety of intravenous imatinib in COVID-19 ARDS: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

PURPOSE: A hallmark of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to pulmonary vascular hyperpermeability. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib reversed pulmonary capillary leak in preclinical studies and improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We investigated the effect of intravenous (IV) imatinib on pulmonary edema in COVID-19 ARDS. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Invasively ventilated patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS were randomized to 200 mg IV imatinib or placebo twice daily for a maximum of seven days. The primary outcome was the change in extravascular lung water index (∆EVLWi) between days 1 and 4. Secondary outcomes included safety, duration of invasive ventilation, ventilator-free days (VFD) and 28-day mortality. Posthoc analyses were performed in previously identified biological subphenotypes. RESULTS: 66 patients were randomized to imatinib (n = 33) or placebo (n = 33). There was no difference in ∆EVLWi between the groups (0.19 ml/kg, 95% CI - 3.16 to 2.77, p = 0.89). Imatinib treatment did not affect duration of invasive ventilation (p = 0.29), VFD (p = 0.29) or 28-day mortality (p = 0.79). IV imatinib was well-tolerated and appeared safe. In a subgroup of patients characterized by high IL-6, TNFR1 and SP-D levels (n = 20), imatinib significantly decreased EVLWi per treatment day (- 1.17 ml/kg, 95% CI - 1.87 to - 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: IV imatinib did not reduce pulmonary edema or improve clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. While this trial does not support the use of imatinib in the general COVID-19 ARDS population, imatinib reduced pulmonary edema in a subgroup of patients, underscoring the potential value of predictive enrichment in ARDS trials. Trial registration NCT04794088 , registered 11 March 2021. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number: 2020-005447-23).

Evaluation of marketing authorization and clinical implementation of ulipristal acetate for uterine fibroids.

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a medical treatment for uterine fibroids and was authorized for surgical pre-treatment in 2012 after the conduct of the PEARL I and II randomized controlled trials and for intermittent treatment after the observational PEARL III and IV trials. However, UPA came into disrepute due to its temporary suspension in 2017 and 2020 because of an apparent association with liver injury. This clinical opinion paper aims to review the process of marketing authorization and implementation of UPA, in order to provide all involved stakeholders with recommendations for the introduction of future drugs. Before marketing authorization, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) states that Phase III registration trials should evaluate relevant outcomes in a representative population, while comparing to gold-standard treatment. This review shows that the representativeness of the study populations in all PEARL trials was limited, surgical outcomes were not evaluated and intermittent treatment was assessed without comparative groups. Implementation into clinical practice was extensive, with 900 000 prescribed treatment cycles in 5 years in Europe and Canada combined. Extremely high costs are involved in developing and evaluating pre-marketing studies in new drugs, influencing trial design and relevance of chosen outcomes, thereby impeding clinical applicability. It is vitally important that the marketing implementation after authorization is regulated in such way that necessary evidence is generated before widespread prescription of a new drug. All stakeholders, from pharmaceutical companies to authorizing bodies, governmental funding bodies and medical professionals should be aware of their role and take responsibility for their part in this process.

Implementation of a pharmacist-led transitional pharmaceutical care programme: Process evaluation of Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH).

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The recently conducted Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH) transitional care programme, which aimed to test the effectiveness of a transitional care programme on the occurrence of ADEs post-discharge, did not show a significant effect. To clarify whether this non-significant effect was due to poor implementation or due to ineffectiveness of the intervention as such, a process evaluation was conducted. The aim of the study was to gain more insight into the implementation fidelity of MARCH. METHODS: A mixed methods design and the modified Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity was used. For evaluation, the implementation fidelity and moderating factors of four key MARCH intervention components (teach-back, the pharmaceutical discharge letter, the post-discharge home-visit and the transitional medication review) were assessed. Quantitative data were collected during and after the intervention. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with MARCH healthcare professionals (community pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, pharmacy assistants and pharmaceutical consultants) and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Not all key intervention components were implemented as intended. Teach-back was not always performed. Moreover, 63% of the pharmaceutical discharge letters, 35% of the post-discharge home-visits and 44% of the transitional medication reviews were not conducted within their planned time frames. Training sessions, structured manuals and protocols with detailed descriptions facilitated implementation. Intervention complexity, time constraints and the multidisciplinary coordination were identified as barriers for the implementation. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Overall, the implementation fidelity was considered to be moderate. Not all key intervention components were carried out as planned. Therefore, the non-significant results of the MARCH programme on ADEs may at least partly be explained by poor implementation of the programme. To successfully implement transitional care programmes, healthcare professionals require full integration of these programmes in the standard work-flow including IT improvements as well as compensation for the time investment.

Risk-efficacy balance of ulipristal acetate compared to surgical alternatives.

AIMS: Uterine fibroids are benign tumours that cause various complaints. These complaints may significantly compromise quality of life, necessitating a clinical intervention in 25-50% of the affected women. Hysterectomy, myomectomy or embolization may offer symptomatic relief, but are costly, include a recovery period, can cause serious side-effects, sometimes fail to treat symptoms completely and are not always desired by patients. Ulipristal is a conservative long-term treatment that has a fibroid-volume decreasing effect, acceptable side-effects while preserving fertility and may be an alternative to surgical alternatives. Currently, ulipristal is investigated by the European Medicine Agency and suspended from marketing authorization because it may cause drug-induced liver injury (DILI). However, many drugs can cause severe DILI and prospective studies estimate 14-19 DILI cases/100 000 people. METHODS: This overview will discuss the risk-benefit balance between ulipristal and DILI, describe the safety-efficacy balance of ulipristal and its alternative treatments and the arguments that led to the suspension of its marketing authorization. RESULTS: Ulipristal may be associated with DILI resulting in a risk of severe liver injury in 1.5:100 000 patients and fatal liver injury in 0.1:100 000 patients. This risk needs to be weighed against the higher mortality risk of >1:1000 and higher incidence of severe complications after surgery. CONCLUSION: The DILI risk of ulipristal is considerably lower than that of other medicines that are not suspended, nor need additional safety measures. When evaluating drugs and drug safety, risks that apply to the alternative nonpharmacological treatment options should be taken into consideration.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Psychotropics as a Diagnostic Tool for CYP2D6 Poor Metabolizer Phenotype.

BACKGROUND: Interpatient variability in cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) enzyme activity alters the serum concentrations of most psychotropics, which often have narrow therapeutic indices. Therefore, preemptive knowledge of CYP2D6 activity is desired. However, accessible indicators for deficient CYP2D6 activity are necessary because genotyping all patients prescribed CYP2D6 metabolized drugs is often not feasible or cost-effective. METHODS: In this study, the predictive value of the ratio between a CYP2D6 substrate and its metabolite, known as the metabolic ratio (MR), the dose-corrected serum concentration of substrate (CDR), and the dose-corrected sum concentration of substrate and metabolite (Sum CDR) of venlafaxine, risperidone, aripiprazole, and nortriptyline were determined to predict the CYP2D6 poor metabolizer (PM) phenotype. The area-under-the-receiver operator characteristic curve, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the optimal thresholds, were calculated. RESULTS: Although the MR, CDR, and Sum CDR all predicted the CYP2D6 PM phenotype, the predictive value of the MR was most robust for venlafaxine and aripiprazole, and the Sum CDR was inferior for all 3 psychotropics. MRs of venlafaxine, risperidone, and aripiprazole, and CDR of nortriptyline showed an area-under-the-receiver operator characteristics (95% confidence interval) of 97.2% (94.7%-99.6%), 93.0% (88.8%-97.2%), 97.8% (95.4%-100.0%), and 85.6% (78.0%-93.1%), respectively. Thresholds of the log(MR) of ≥0.1 for venlafaxine, ≥0.0 for risperidone, and ≥1.5 for aripiprazole, and log(CDR) ≥0.5 for nortriptyline produced >92% sensitivity and >64% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: If therapeutic drug monitoring is available, the thresholds presented here could serve as a diagnostic tool for the CYP2D6 PM phenotype of psychiatric patients prescribed the aforementioned psychotropic medications.

Low-risk trials for children and pregnant women threatened by unnecessary strict regulations. Does the coming EU Clinical Trial Regulation offer a solution?

Investigator-initiated clinical trials are crucial for improving quality of care for children and pregnant women as they are often excluded from industry-initiated trials. However, trials have become increasingly time-consuming and costly since the EU Clinical Trial Directive entered into force in 2001. This directive made compliance with ICH-Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (ethical and quality standard for conducting human subject research) mandatory for all clinical trials, regardless of its risk-classification. By discussing two investigator-initiated, 'low-risk' drug trials, we aim to illustrate that compliance with all GCP requirements makes trials very laborious and expensive, while a clear rationale is missing. This discourages clinical researchers to start and carry out investigator-initiated research. However, the forthcoming EU Clinical Trial Regulation (No 536/2014) seems to provide a solution as it allows for less stringent rules for low-risk trials. We want to raise awareness for these developments in both the clinical research community and the European and national regulatory authorities. Implementation of this forthcoming Regulation regulatory policies should be done in such a way that investigator-initiated trials evaluating standard care interventions will become more feasible. This will allow us to obtain evidence on optimal and safe treatments, especially for groups that are underrepresented in medical research. What is Known • Investigator-initiated trials are indispensable for improving care for children and pregnant women as they are often excluded from industry-initiated trials • Trials have become increasingly time-consuming and costly because of mandatory compliance with ICH-GCP guidelines What is New • The forthcoming EU Clinical Trial Regulation allows less stringent rules for low-risk trials • The national legislator and regulatory authorities should recognize the importance of this opportunity and implement the Regulation in such a way that investigator-initiated trials will become more feasible.

Haloperidol versus placebo for delirium prevention in acutely hospitalised older at risk patients: a multi-centre double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial.

Background: because the few randomised placebo-controlled trials investigating the potential role for prophylactic haloperidol in delirium prevention have focused on specific surgical populations, we investigated its efficacy and safety in acutely hospitalised older patients. Methods: this multi-centre, double-blind, stratified, block randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at six Dutch hospitals. Patients age ≥70 years, acutely admitted through the emergency department for general medicine or surgical specialties and at risk for delirium were randomised (n = 245) to haloperidol or placebo 1 mg orally twice-daily (maximum of 14 doses) on top of standard nonpharmacological prevention strategies. The primary outcome was delirium incidence. Other endpoints included delirium severity and duration, drug safety and clinical outcomes. Results: intention-to-treat analysis included 242 participants (calculated sample size n = 390, statistical power of current sample 59%) allocated to haloperidol (n = 118) or placebo (n = 124). In the haloperidol and placebo group, delirium incidence was 19.5 versus 14.5% (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.78); median (IQR) delirium duration 4 (2, 5) versus 3 (1, 6) days (P = 0.366); maximum DRS-R-98 score 16 (9.8, 19.5) versus 10 (5.5, 22.5) (P = 0.549; 53.7% missing data); hospital LOS 7 (4, 10.3) versus 7 (5, 11.8) days (P = 0.343); 3-month mortality 9.9 versus 12.5% (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.75), respectively. No treatment-limiting side effects were noted. Conclusions: prophylactic low-dose oral haloperidol did not reduce delirium incidence in acutely hospitalised older patients. Therefore, prophylactic use of haloperidol in this population is not recommended.

Short-Term Effects of Methylphenidate on Math Productivity in Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder are Mediated by Symptom Improvements: Evidence From a Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies report positive effects of methylphenidate on academic performance, the mechanism behind these improvements remains unclear. This study investigates the effects of methylphenidate on academic performance in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the mediating and moderating influence of ADHD severity, academic performance, and ADHD symptom improvement. METHODS: Sixty-three children with ADHD participated in a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study comparing the effects of long-acting methylphenidate and placebo. Dependent variables were math, reading, and spelling performance. The ADHD group performance was compared with a group of 67 typically developing children. RESULTS: Methylphenidate improved math productivity and accuracy in children with ADHD. The effect of methylphenidate on math productivity was partly explained by parent-rated symptom improvement, with greater efficacy for children showing more symptom improvement. Further, children showing below-average math performance while on placebo profited more from methylphenidate than children showing above-average math performance. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study indicate positive effects of methylphenidate on academic performance, although these were limited to math abilities. In light of these results, expectations of parents, teachers, and treating physicians about the immediate effects of methylphenidate on academic improvement should be tempered. Moreover, our results implicate that positive effects of methylphenidate on math performance are in part due directly to effects on math ability and in part due to reductions in ADHD symptoms.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent depression and poor physical function in older adults: Study protocol of the D-Vitaal study, a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms and decreased physical functioning are interrelated conditions and common in older persons, causing significant individual and societal burden. Evidence suggests that vitamin D supplementation may be beneficial for both mental and physical functioning. However, previous randomized controlled trials have yielded inconsistent results and often had suboptimal designs. This study examines the effect of vitamin D supplementation on both depressive symptoms and physical functioning in a high-risk population of older persons with low vitamin D status. METHODS/DESIGN: The D-Vitaal study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the effects of a daily dose of 1200 IU vitamin D3 versus placebo for one year on depressive symptoms and physical functioning (primary outcomes) in older adults. Participants (N = 155, age 60-80 years) were recruited from the general population. Eligibility criteria included the presence of depressive symptoms, ≥1 functional limitation and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels between 15 and 50/70 nmol/L (depending on season). Secondary outcomes include incidence of major depressive disorder, anxiety symptoms, health-related quality of life, cognitive function and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. DISCUSSION: With this study, we aim to elucidate the effects of vitamin D supplementation on depressive symptoms and physical functioning in older persons who are at high risk of developing more substantial mental and physical problems. If effective, vitamin D supplementation can be a preventive intervention strategy that is easy to implement in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR3845. Registered 6 February 2013.

Prevention of exacerbations in patients with COPD and vitamin D deficiency through vitamin D supplementation (PRECOVID): a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D is well known for its function in calcium homeostasis and bone mineralisation, but is increasingly studied for its potential immunomodulatory properties. Vitamin D deficiency is a common problem in patients with COPD. Previous studies have not demonstrated a beneficial effect of vitamin D on exacerbation rate in COPD patients. However, subgroup analyses suggested protective effects in vitamin D deficient patients. Our objective is to assess the effect of vitamin D supplementation on exacerbation rate specifically in vitamin D deficient COPD patients. METHODS/DESIGN: We will perform a randomised, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled intervention study. The study population consists of 240 COPD patients aged 40 years and older with vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration < 50 nmol/L). Participants will be recruited after an exacerbation and will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive vitamin D3 16800 IU or placebo orally once a week during 1 year. Participants will receive a diary card to register the incidence of exacerbations and changes in medication during the study period. Visits will be performed at baseline, at 6 months and at 12 months after randomisation. Participants will undergo spirometry, measurement of total lung capacity and assessment of maximal respiratory mouth pressure. Several physical performance and hand grip strength tests will be performed, questionnaires on quality of life and physical activity will be filled in, a nasal secretion sample and swab will be obtained and blood samples will be taken. The primary outcome will be exacerbation rate. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first RCT aimed at the effects of vitamin D supplementation on exacerbation rate in vitamin D deficient COPD patients. Also, in contrast to earlier studies that used infrequent dosing regimens, our trial will study effects of a weekly dose of vitamin D supplementation. Secondly, the immunomodulatory effects of vitamin D on host immune response of COPD patients and underlying mechanisms will be studied. Finally, the effects on physical functioning will be examined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, ID number NCT02122627 . Date of Registration April 2014.

Efficacy and safety of haloperidol prophylaxis for delirium prevention in older medical and surgical at-risk patients acutely admitted to hospital through the emergency department: study protocol of a multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality rates in elderly hospitalised patients, and a growing problem due to increase in life expectancy. Implementation of standardised non-pharmacological delirium prevention strategies is challenging and adherence remains low. Pharmacological delirium prevention with haloperidol, currently the drug of choice for delirium, seems promising. However, the generalisability of randomised controlled trial results is questionable since studies have only been performed in selected postoperative hip-surgery and intensive care unit patient populations. We therefore present the design of the multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on early pharmacological intervention to prevent delirium: haloperidol prophylaxis in older emergency department patients (The HARPOON study). METHODS/DESIGN: In six Dutch hospitals, at-risk patients aged 70 years or older acutely admitted through the emergency department for general medicine and surgical specialties are randomised (n = 390) for treatment with prophylactic haloperidol 1 mg or placebo twice daily for a maximum of seven consecutive days. Primary outcome measure is the incidence of in-hospital delirium within seven days of start of the study intervention, diagnosed with the Confusion Assessment Method, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition criteria for delirium. Secondary outcome measures include delirium severity and duration assessed with the Delirium Rating Scale Revised 98; number of delirium-free days; adverse events; hospital length-of-stay; all-cause mortality; new institutionalisation; (Instrumental) Activities of Daily Living assessed with the Katz Index of ADL, and Lawton IADL scale; cognitive function assessed with the Six-item Cognitive Impairment Test, and the Dutch short form Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. Patients will be contacted by telephone three and six months post-discharge to collect data on cognitive- and physical function, home residency, all-cause hospital admissions, and all-cause mortality. DISCUSSION: The HARPOON study will provide relevant information on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic haloperidol treatment for in-hospital delirium and its effects on relevant clinical outcomes in elderly at-risk medical and surgical patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 201100476215; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01530308; Dutch Clinical Trial Registry: NTR3207.

Improving Methylphenidate Titration in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Placebo-Controlled Titration Implemented in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Concerns exist regarding the rising use of methylphenidate. A double-blind, placebo-controlled methylphenidate titration (PCT) for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has shown potential to improve titration (i.e., detection of placebo responders and larger ADHD symptom improvement) in experimental settings. This study aims to determine if these advantages can be transferred to clinical settings. METHOD: Children (aged 5-13 years) with an ADHD diagnosis and an indication to start methylphenidate (MPH) treatment were recruited. Participants were randomized to PCT or care as usual (CAU) in a 1:1 ratio followed by a 7-week randomized controlled trial (T1) and 6-month, naturalistic, open-label follow-up (T2). Parents, teachers, and physicians rated ADHD symptoms, ADHD medication use, MPH dosing, and treatment satisfaction using questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 100 children were enrolled and randomized to PCT (n = 49) or CAU (n = 51). In the PCT group, we found 8.2% placebo responders, 16.3% non-responders, and 65.3% responders to MPH. With PCT compared with CAU, a significantly larger number of children discontinued MPH (T1: 24.5 vs 5.9%, p = 0.009; T2: 41.7 vs 10.4%, p < 0.001) and refrained from using other pharmacological treatment (T1: 20.4 vs 3.9%, p = 0.013; T2: 20.83 vs 6.25%, p = 0.002). At both timepoints, there were no significant differences between the groups in the average dose of MPH, ADHD symptoms, or treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: PCT can be used to improve detection of children who do not benefit from MPH, and may therefore potentially reduce overtreatment of ADHD with MPH.

Pharmacotherapy to Improve Cognitive Functioning After Acquired Brain Injury: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.

Cognitive impairments, common sequelae of acquired brain injury (ABI), significantly affect rehabilitation and quality of life. Currently, there is no solid evidence-base for pharmacotherapy to improve cognitive functioning after ABI, nevertheless off-label use is widely applied in clinical practice. This meta-analysis and meta-regression aims to quantitatively aggregate the available evidence for the effects of pharmacological agents used in the treatment of cognitive impairments following ABI. We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, Medline Ovid, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases for randomized controlled and crossover trials. Meta-analytic effects were calculated for each pharmaceutical agent and targeted neuromodulator system. Cognitive outcome measures were aggregated across cognitive domains. Of 8,216 articles, 41 studies (4,434 patients) were included. The noradrenergic agent methylphenidate showed a small, significant positive effect on cognitive functioning in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI; k = 14, d = 0.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.56, P = 0.003). Specifically, methylphenidate was found to improve cognitive functions related to executive memory, baseline speed, inhibitory control, and variability in responding. The cholinergic drug donepezil demonstrated a large effect size, albeit based on a limited number of studies (k = 3, d = 1.68, P = 0.03). No significant effects were observed for other agents. Additionally, meta-regression analysis did not identify significant sources of heterogeneity in treatment response. Our meta-analysis supports the use of methylphenidate for enhancing cognitive functioning in patients with TBI. Although donepezil shows potential, it warrants further research. These results could guide clinical decision making, inform practice guidelines, and direct future pharmacotherapeutic research in ABI.

Three Prospective Case Studies Examining Mifepristone's Efficacy in Patients with Treatment-Resistant PTSD.

Despite the availability of various treatment approaches for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), some patients do not respond to these therapies, and novel treatment approaches are needed. This study investigated the efficacy of mifepristone, a glucocorticoid receptor antagonist, in treatment-resistant PTSD patients. Three patients with PTSD who were resistant to standard psychological and pharmacological treatments were prescribed mifepristone (600-1,200 mg/day) for 1 week. A baseline-controlled single-case design was used, involving a 2-week baseline phase (no intervention), a 1-week intervention phase (mifepristone), and a 2-week postintervention phase. The primary outcome measure, self-reported PTSD symptom severity (PCL-5), was assessed daily, with participants providing their own control condition. Two of the three patients experienced a significant reduction in PTSD symptom severity after the intervention phase and no longer met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These positive results were maintained during long-term follow-up. These findings support the potential effectiveness of mifepristone in the treatment of patients with treatment-resistant PTSD. However, our findings must be interpreted with caution, and further studies with larger sample sizes and more rigorous designs are necessary to confirm the promising results.

Could pramipexole induce acute mania? A case report.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with bipolar disorder, olanzapine is commonly used to prevent episodes of acute mania. The drug pramipexole can, in theory, undermine the protective effect of olanzapine. Olanzapine is a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist and pramipexole is a mixed dopamine D2 /D3 receptor agonist. These drugs may therefore theoretically counteract their pharmacological effects. To date, there are no known cases in the literature where this interaction has been described. METHODS: We report on a case where a patient with bipolar disorder developed mania after taking pramipexole in combination with olanzapine, and describe the pharmacological background of this interaction. RESULTS: A patient with bipolar I disorder was hospitalized with a manic episode characterized by agitation and insomnia after taking pramipexole for restless leg syndrome (RLS) in combination with olanzapine. Co-medication, i.e., lithium and mirtazapine, and other circumstances are not likely to have contributed to this effect. CONCLUSION: There is a probable interaction between pramipexole and olanzapine, where pramipexole undermines the protective effect of olanzapine, provoking an episode of acute mania and hospitalization. This interaction is of clinical importance since pramipexole is the treatment of choice for RLS, a condition often seen in end-stage renal disease, and has also been investigated as an antidepressant therapy in patients with bipolar disorder.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transmural collaborative care with consultation letter (TCCCL) and duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD) and (sub)chronic pain in collaboration with primary care: design of a randomized placebo-controlled multi-Centre trial: TCC:PAINDIP.

BACKGROUND: The comorbidity of pain and depression is associated with high disease burden for patients in terms of disability, wellbeing, and use of medical care. Patients with major and minor depression often present themselves with pain to a general practitioner and recognition of depression in such cases is low, but evolving. Also, physical symptoms, including pain, in major depressive disorder, predict a poorer response to treatment. A multi-faceted, patient-tailored treatment programme, like collaborative care, is promising. However, treatment of chronic pain conditions in depressive patients has, so far, received limited attention in research. Cost effectiveness of an integrated approach of pain in depressed patients has not been studied. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a placebo controlled double blind, three armed randomized multi centre trial. Patients with (sub)chronic pain and a depressive disorder are randomized to either a) collaborative care with duloxetine, b) collaborative care with placebo or c) duloxetine alone. 189 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 0.6 SD on the primary outcome measures (PHQ-9 score). Data on depression, anxiety, mental and physical health, medication adherence, medication tolerability, quality of life, patient-doctor relationship, coping, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months. DISCUSSION: This study enables us to show the value of a closely monitored integrated treatment model above usual pharmacological treatment. Furthermore, a comparison with a placebo arm enables us to evaluate effectiveness of duloxetine in this population in a real life setting. Also, this study will provide evidence-based treatments and tools for their implementation in practice. This will facilitate generalization and implementation of results of this study. Moreover, patients included in this study are screened for pain symptoms, differentiating between nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Therefore, pain relief can be thoroughly evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR1089.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of imatinib for optimal drug repurposing from cancer to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In the randomized double-blind placebo-controlled CounterCOVID study, oral imatinib treatment conferred a positive clinical outcome and a signal for reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients. High concentrations of alpha-1 acid glycoprotein (AAG) were observed in these patients and were associated with increased total imatinib concentrations. AIMS: This post-hoc study aimed to compare the difference in exposure following oral imatinib administration in COVID-19 patients to cancer patients and assess assocations between pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and pharmacodynamic (PD) outcomes of imatinib in COVID-19 patients. We hypothesize that a relatively higher drug exposure of imatinib in severe COVID-19 patients leads to improved pharmacodynamic outcome parameters. METHODS: 648 total concentration plasma samples obtained from 168 COVID-19 patients were compared to 475 samples of 105 cancer patients, using an AAG-binding model. Total trough concentration at steady state (Cttrough) and total average area under the concentration-time curve (AUCtave) were associated with ratio between partial oxygen pressure and fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F), WHO ordinal scale (WHO-score) and liberation of oxygen supplementation (O2lib). Linear regression, linear mixed effects models and time-to-event analysis were adjusted for possible confounders. RESULTS: AUCtave and Cttrough were respectively 2.21-fold (95%CI 2.07-2.37) and 1.53-fold (95%CI 1.44-1.63) lower for cancer compared to COVID-19 patients. Cttrough, not AUCtave, associated significantly with P/F (ß=-19,64; p-value=0.014) and O2lib (HR 0.78; p-value= 0.032), after adjusting for sex, age, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, dexamethasone concomitant treatment, AAG and baseline P/F-and WHO-score. Cttrough, but not AUCtave associated significantly with WHO-score. These results suggest an inverse relationship between PK-parameters, Cttrough and AUCtave, and PD outcomes. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients exhibit higher total imatinib exposure compared to cancer patients, attributed to differences in plasma protein concentrations. Higher imatinib exposure in COVID-19 patients did not associate with improved clinical outcomes. Cttrough and AUCtave inversely associated with some PD-outcomes, which may be biased by disease course, variability in metabolic rate and protein binding. Therefore, additional PKPD analyses into unbound imatinib and its main metabolite may better explain exposure-response.