Labor market affiliation of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms: a population-based matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) suffer from substantial symptoms and risk of debilitating complications, yet observational data on their labor market affiliation are scarce. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive cohort study using data from Danish nationwide registries, including patients diagnosed with MPN in 2010-2016. Each patient was matched with up to ten comparators without MPN on age, sex, level of education, and region of residence. We assessed pre- and post-diagnosis labor market affiliation, defined as working, unemployed, or receiving sickness benefit, disability pension, retirement pension, or other health-related benefits. Labor market affiliation was assessed weekly from two years pre-diagnosis until death, emigration, or 31 December 2018. For patients and comparators, we reported percentage point (pp) changes in labor market affiliation cross-sectionally from week -104 pre-diagnosis to week 104 post-diagnosis. RESULTS: The study included 3,342 patients with MPN and 32,737 comparators. From two years pre-diagnosis until two years post-diagnosis, a larger reduction in the proportion working was observed among patients than comparators (essential thrombocythemia: 10.2 [95% CI: 6.3-14.1] vs. 6.8 [95% CI: 5.5-8.0] pp; polycythemia vera: 9.6 [95% CI: 5.9-13.2] vs. 7.4 [95% CI: 6.2-8.7] pp; myelofibrosis: 8.1 [95% CI: 3.0-13.2] vs. 5.8 [95% CI: 4.2-7.5] pp; and unclassifiable MPN: 8.0 [95% CI: 3.0-13.0] vs. 7.4 [95% CI: 5.7-9.1] pp). Correspondingly, an increase in the proportion of patients receiving sickness benefits including other health-related benefits was evident around the time of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that Danish patients with essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, myelofibrosis, and unclassifiable MPN had slightly impaired labor market affiliation compared with a population of the same age and sex. From two years pre-diagnosis to two years post-diagnosis, we observed a larger reduction in the proportion of patients with MPN working and a greater proportion receiving sickness benefits compared with matched individuals.

Healthcare resource utilization in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms: A Danish nationwide matched cohort study.

Few studies have assessed healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in patients with Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) using a matched cohort design. Further, no detailed assessment of HRU in the years preceding an MPN diagnosis exists. We conducted a registry-based nationwide Danish cohort study, including patients with essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, myelofibrosis, and unclassifiable MPN diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2016. HRU data were summarized annually from 2 years before MPN diagnosis until emigration, death, or end of study (December 2017). We included 3342 MPN patients and 32 737 comparisons without an MPN diagnosis, matched on sex, age, region of residence, and level of education. During the study period, the difference in HRU (rate ratio) between patients and matched comparisons ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 for general practitioner contacts, 0.9 to 2.2 for hospitalizations, 0.9 to 3.8 for inpatient days, 1.0 to 4.0 for outpatient visits, 1.3 to 2.1 for emergency department visits, and 1.0 to 4.1 for treatments/examinations. In conclusion, MPN patients had overall higher HRU than the matched comparisons throughout the follow-up period (maximum 8 years). Further, MPN patients had substantially increased HRU in both the primary and secondary healthcare sector in the 2 years preceding the diagnosis.

Prospective Study of Chromogranin A as a Predictor of Progression in Patients with Pancreatic, Small-Intestinal, and Unknown Primary Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies are conflicting but most of them report that an increase in plasma chromogranin A (CgA) predicts tumor progression in neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients. Prospectively, we investigated if a change in plasma CgA is associated with tumor burden changes in NET patients with disseminated disease. METHODS: We included 239 patients treated at 5 NET centers from December 2010 to December 2013. CgA was measured within 6 weeks of a CT or MRI in a patient undergoing at least 2 scan examinations performed over a period of 1-24 months. In a post hoc analysis, CgA measured 3-6 months prior to the CT/MRI was analyzed. Changes in tumor size were evaluated by RECIST1.1. A 25% change in CgA was chosen to discriminate between increased, decreased, or unchanged levels. RESULTS: In 671 events (2 CT/MRI scans and 2 corresponding CgA measurements), we found a weak positive correlation between the RECIST 1.1 responses and change in plasma CgA from baseline (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient: 0.15; p < 0.05). Of 304 events in the post hoc analysis, 58 showed progression, 228 showed stable disease, and 18 showed regression, with a median change in CgA of 19% (IQR: 57 to -20%), -12% (23 to -38%), and -73% (-55 to -83%), respectively. The correlation coefficient for all sites was 0.17 (p = 0.003), and it was 0.16 (p = 0.07), 0.18 (p = 0.04), and 0.20 (p = 0.21) for small-intestinal (n = 137), pancreatic (n = 123), and unknown primary NET (n = 40), respectively. In the 58 patients showing tumor progression, the sensitivity and specificity of an increased CgA concentration were 36 and 82%, respectively, with positive and negative predictive values of 32 and 85%. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study of gastroenteropancreatic NET patients, we observed only a weak association between a change in plasma CgA and changes in tumor burden. CgA as a single biomarker was thus inadequate to predict tumor progression.

Prediction and modeling of effects on the QTc interval for clinical safety margin assessment, based on single-ascending-dose study data with AZD3839.

Corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation in humans is usually predictable based on results from preclinical findings. This study confirms the signal from preclinical cardiac repolarization models (human ether-a-go-go-related gene, guinea pig monophasic action potential, and dog telemetry) on the clinical effects on the QTc interval. A thorough QT/QTc study is generally required for bioavailable pharmaceutical compounds to determine whether or not a drug shows a QTc effect above a threshold of regulatory interest. However, as demonstrated in this AZD3839 [(S)-1-(2-(difluoromethyl)pyridin-4-yl)-4-fluoro-1-(3-(pyrimidin-5-yl)phenyl)-1H-isoindol-3-amine hemifumarate] single-ascending-dose (SAD) study, high-resolution digital electrocardiogram data, in combination with adequate efficacy biomarker and pharmacokinetic data and nonlinear mixed effects modeling, can provide the basis to safely explore the margins to allow for robust modeling of clinical effect versus the electrophysiological risk marker. We also conclude that a carefully conducted SAD study may provide reliable data for effective early strategic decision making ahead of the thorough QT/QTc study.

Effectiveness of psychotropic medications in the maintenance phase of bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of maintenance treatments for bipolar disorder. Placebo-controlled or active comparator bipolar maintenance clinical trials of ≥6 months' duration with at least 15 patients/treatment group were identified using Medline, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases (1993 to July 2010). The main outcome measure was relative risk for relapse for patients in remission. Twenty trials (5,364 patients) were identified. Overall, lithium and quetiapine were the most studied agents (eight and five trials, respectively). The majority of studies included patients who had previously responded to treatment for an acute episode. All interventions, with the exception of perphenazine+mood stabilizer, showed a relative risk for manic/mixed or depressive relapse below 1.0, although there was variation in the statistical significance of the findings vs. placebo. No monotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk for both manic/mixed and depressed relapse. Of the combination treatments, only quetiapine+lithium/divalproex, was associated with a significantly reduced risk vs. comparator (placebo+lithium/valproate) for relapse at both the manic/mixed and depressed poles of bipolar illness. Limitations for the analysis include differences in study durations and definitions of relapse. In conclusion, available maintenance therapies show considerable variation in efficacy. The efficacy of lithium and divalproex has been confirmed, but newer therapies, such as a number of atypical antipsychotics were also shown to be effective in bipolar disorder. Efficacy of all maintenance interventions needs to be balanced against the safety and tolerability profiles of individual agents.

Socioeconomic cost of AML in Sweden-A population-based study using multiple nation-wide registers.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with a high economic and clinical burden. Recently novel therapies have been added to standard treatment regimens. Here, we evaluated the economic impact of AML up until the introduction of these novel therapies. Individual data on 2954 adult patients diagnosed from 2007 to 2015 from five Swedish national population-based registers were used, enabling analyses from diagnosis to either death or 5-year follow-up for survival, inpatient and outpatient costs, costs of prescribed drugs, sick leave, and early retirement. Costs per patient were stratified by age group, treatment options, and FLT3-ITD status. The expected 5-year costs per patient differed substantially between age groups. Patients aged 18-59 years had an expected mean cost per patient of €170,748, while age groups 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and >80 years incurred an expected mean cost of €92,252, €48,344, and €24,118, respectively, over 5 years. Patients <60 years undergoing stem cell transplantation had the highest costs (€228,525 over 5 years). About 60% of costs for these patients were from hospitalizations and 20% from sick leave and early retirement; cost per day was highest from the first admission to complete remission. This study provides a baseline for socioeconomic evaluations of novel therapies in AML in Sweden.

Treatment options for bipolar depression: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials.

This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of treatments of bipolar depression. Trials were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases (1993 to July 2008). The outcome measures included mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) total scores, and rates of response and remission. Overall, 19 publications were included. Medications included quetiapine, lamotrigine, paroxetine, lithium, olanzapine, aripiprazole, phenelzine, and divalproex. The most trials were identified for quetiapine (5) and lamotrigine (6). Not all medications were associated with symptomatic improvement (significant reduction in MADRS/HAM-D total scores vs placebo), with lamotrigine, paroxetine, aripiprazole, and lithium not being different from placebo. Highest reductions in MADRS scores versus placebo were reported for the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (1 trial: -6.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.59 to -3.61; P = 0.000) and quetiapine monotherapy (5 trials: for 300 mg/d, -4.8; 95% CI, -6.18 to -3.49; P = 0.000; for 600 mg/d, -4.8; 95% CI, -6.22 to -3.28; P = 0.000), with quetiapine monotherapy also showing the highest reduction in HAM-D scores (4 trials: -4.0; 95% CI, -5.0 to -2.9; P = 0.000). All medications except paroxetine, lithium, aripiprazole, and phenelzine significantly improved the ratio of probabilities of response (overall rate, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40) and remission (1.32; 95% CI, 1.20-1.45) versus placebo. Variability in efficacy exists between treatments of bipolar depression. Quetiapine and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination showed the greatest symptomatic improvement. Efficacy considerations will need to be balanced against safety and tolerability of the individual agents.

The psychometric validation of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in patients with bipolar disorder.

Bipolar disorder (BD) adversely affects daily activities/functioning. The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) assesses disability in work/school activities, family relationships, and social functioning, and it evaluates the functional impact of psychiatric disorders. BD outpatients from 21 U.S. sites completed a battery of validated instruments (including the SDS) three times over 8-12 weeks. Instrument reliability (internal consistency, test-retest), validity (construct, convergent validity, known groups) and responsiveness were measured. There were missing data for the SDS in 2% of the 225 subjects with BD. One factor explained 82% of the variance. All SDS items had rotated factor loadings on the first factor >0.90, confirming the appropriateness of the SDS total score. Item-scale correlations surpassed 0.40. There was excellent internal consistency reliability for the SDS total score (Cronbach's alpha=0.89). Test-retest reliability was acceptable for the SDS total score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.73). Correlations with other instruments demonstrate convergent and divergent validity. The SDS total and item scores significantly discriminated between (self-rated) overall health status, clinician-rated functional status, and clinician-rated depression, evidencing known group validity. The SDS demonstrated ability to detect change over time. The SDS is a valid, reliable measure of disability and is responsive to change over time when used in subjects with BD.

Reporting outcomes in clinical trials for bipolar disorder: a commentary and suggestions for change.

OBJECTIVE: Newer outcome measures and statistical reporting that better translate efficacy data to evidence-based psychiatric care are needed when evaluating clinical trials for bipolar disorder. Using efficacy studies as illustrations, the authors review and recommend changes in the reporting of traditional clinical outcomes both in the acute and maintenance phases of bipolar disorder. METHODS: Definitions of response, remission, relapse, recovery, and recurrence are reviewed and recommendations for change are made. These suggestions include reporting the numbers needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH), and a ratio of the two, likelihood of help or harm (LHH), as an important element of the effect size (ES). Moreover, models of prediction that conduct sensitivity or specificity analyses and utilize decision trees to help predict positive and negative outcomes of interest (for instance, excessive weight gain, or time to remission) using positive or negative predictive values (PPV or NPV) are reviewed for potential value to clinicians. Finally, functional and cognitive assessments are recommended for maintenance studies of bipolar disorder. RESULTS: The examples provided in this manuscript underscore that reporting the NNT or NNH, or alternative effect sizes, or using PPV or NPV may be of particular value to clinicians. Such reports are likely to help translate efficacy-driven clinical data to information that will more readily guide clinicians on the benefits and risks of specific interventions in bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The authors opine that reporting these newer outcomes, such as NNT or NNH, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), or PPV or NPV will help translate the results of clinical trials into a language that is more readily understood by clinicians. Moreover, assessing and evaluating functional and cognitive outcomes will not only inform clinicians about potential differences among therapeutic options, but likely will make it easier to communicate such differences to persons with bipolar illness or to their families. Finally, we hope such scientific and research efforts will translate to optimism for recovery-based outcomes in persons with bipolar disorder.

Efficacy and safety of quetiapine in combination with lithium or divalproex for maintenance of patients with bipolar I disorder (international trial 126).

BACKGROUND: This study examined the efficacy and safety of quetiapine in combination with lithium or divalproex compared with placebo with lithium or divalproex in the prevention of recurrent mood events in bipolar I patients, most recent episode mania, depression, or mixed. METHODS: Patients received open-label quetiapine (400-800 mg/day; flexible, divided doses) with lithium or divalproex (target serum concentrations 0.5-1.2 mEq/L and 50-125 microg/mL, respectively) for up to 36 weeks to achieve at least 12 weeks of clinical stability. Patients were subsequently randomized to double-blind treatment with quetiapine (400-800 mg/day) plus lithium/divalproex or placebo plus lithium/divalproex for up to 104 weeks. The primary endpoint was time to recurrence of any mood event. RESULTS: Treatment with quetiapine in combination with lithium/divalproex significantly increased the time to recurrence of any mood event compared with placebo plus lithium/divalproex. The proportion of patients having a mood event was markedly lower in the quetiapine than in the placebo group (18.5% versus 49.0%). The hazard ratio for time to recurrence of a mood event was 0.28 (P<0.001), a mania event 0.30 (P<0.001), and a depression event 0.26 (P<0.001) corresponding to risk reductions of 72%, 70%, and 74%, respectively. During the randomization phase, the most common adverse events occurring in > or =5% in the quetiapine group were somnolence, nasopharyngitis, and headache. Insomnia was more common in the placebo group. During the randomization phase, there was an increase in weight of 0.5 kg in the quetiapine group and a reduction of 1.9 kg in the placebo group. The incidence and incidence density of a single emergent fasting blood glucose value> or =126 mg/dL was higher with quetiapine than with placebo (9.3% versus 4.1%; 17.6 versus 9.5 patients per 100 patient-years). LIMITATIONS: This was an enriched sample of patients with bipolar I disorder responding to treatment with quetiapine plus lithium/divalproex. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance treatment with quetiapine in combination with lithium/divalproex significantly increased time to recurrence of any event (mania, depression, or mixed) irrespective of the polarity of the index episode compared with placebo with lithium/divalproex. Long-term treatment with quetiapine was generally well-tolerated. Quetiapine with lithium/divalproex can provide an effective long-term treatment option for bipolar I disorder to prevent recurrences not only of mania but also depression.

Quetiapine monotherapy in the treatment of depressive episodes of bipolar I and II disorder: Improvements in quality of life and quality of sleep.

INTRODUCTION: The depressive symptoms of bipolar disorder impact health-related quality of life, quality of sleep and functioning. The BOLDER I and II trials demonstrated that quetiapine significantly improves depressive symptoms in patients with acute bipolar depression. Post-hoc analysis of the BOLDER I and II data permits a detailed investigation of the effects of quetiapine on these other measures in this patient population. METHODS: Secondary analysis was performed on data from BOLDER I and II, which were two 8-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of quetiapine at fixed doses (300 or 600 mg/day) in a total of 1051 patients with acute depressive episodes of bipolar I or II disorder. Measures included the Short-Form Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q SF) in BOLDER I and II, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in BOLDER I, and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in BOLDER II. Analyses of Q-LES-Q SF score changes were based on data from the combined BOLDER I and II populations, and analyses of PSQI and SDS score changes were based on BOLDER I and BOLDER II populations, respectively. RESULTS: Assessments at day 57 by mixed-model repeated measures analysis demonstrated that quetiapine relative to placebo provided significant or numerical improvements in rating scale score on the Q-LES-Q SF (10.89 with 300 mg/day and 12.14 with 600 mg/day vs. 7.79 with placebo; p<0.001 for each quetiapine dose), PSQI (-5.34 and -6.00 vs. -3.35; p<0.001, each dose), and SDS (-7.78 and -8.25 vs. -6.49; p=0.156 and 0.054, respectively). Effect sizes at day 57 with quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/day, respectively, were 0.34 and 0.46 for Q-LES-Q SF, 0.59 and 0.79 for PSQI, and 0.17 and 0.23 for SDS. Improvements were evident at first post-baseline assessment on day 29 and were consistent over the majority of rating scale domains. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated and most adverse events were of mild to moderate intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine monotherapy is effective in improving impairment in important aspects of life that accompany improvements in depressive symptoms in patients with acute bipolar depression.

Quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar II depression: analysis of data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for depressive episodes in patients with bipolar II disorder. METHODS: A post-hoc evaluation was conducted in 351 patients with bipolar II depression combined from two similarly designed double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week studies of quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/day) that included patients with bipolar I or II disorder (DSM-IV) exhibiting moderate to severe depression. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in MADRS total score. Secondary endpoints included HAM-D, HAM-A, and CGI. RESULTS: In patients with bipolar II disorder, improvement in mean MADRS total score from baseline was significantly greater with quetiapine 300 (n = 107) and 600 mg/day (n = 106) from the first assessment (week 1) through week 8 compared with placebo (n = 108). The mean change from baseline at week 8 for quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/day versus placebo was -17.1 and -17.9 versus -13.3 (P = 0.005 and P = 0.001 versus placebo), respectively. Change in HAM-D, HAM-A, and CGI were also significantly greater for quetiapine groups versus placebo. Common adverse events in the quetiapine groups included dry mouth, sedation, and somnolence. CONCLUSION: Quetiapine demonstrated significant efficacy as monotherapy, compared with placebo, for the treatment of acute depressive episodes in bipolar II disorder.

Rates of remission/euthymia with quetiapine monotherapy compared with placebo in patients with acute mania.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of quetiapine monotherapy compared with placebo on acute (3-week) and more sustained (12-week) rates of response and remission/euthymia in bipolar disorder patients with acute mania. METHODS: Two similar 12-week multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies were conducted, with an a priori decision to combine the data and analyze response and remission rates. Response was measured as a decrease of at least 50% in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores from baseline to Day 21 and Day 84. Five remission/euthymia criteria were employed to determine efficacy at Day 21 and Day 84: (i) YMRS score < or = 12; (ii) YMRS score < or = 12 and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score < or = 10; (iii) YMRS score < or = 12 and MADRS score < or = 8; (iv) YMRS score < or = 8; and (v) YMRS score < or = 8 plus a score < or = 2 for the YMRS core items of Irritability, Speech, Content, and Disruptive/Aggressive Behavior. RESULTS: Patients treated with quetiapine (n=208) and placebo (n=195) had mean YMRS scores at entry of 33.3+/-6.3 and 33.5+/-6.7, respectively. Significantly higher response rates were observed with quetiapine compared with placebo, at Days 21 (48.1% versus 31.3%; p<0.001) and 84 (66.8% versus 40.0%; p<0.001). At Day 21, remission/euthymia rates with quetiapine monotherapy versus placebo were: 37.5% versus 23.1% (YMRS < or = 12), 35.6% versus 21.5% (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 10), 35.1% versus 20.0% (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 8), 25.0% versus 14.4% (YMRS < or = 8), and 21.6% versus 14.4% (YMRS < or = 8 plus core items < or = 2) (p<0.01 for all comparisons except YMRS < or = 8 plus core items < or = 2: p=0.06). By Day 84, these had increased to: 65.4% versus 35.9% (YMRS < or = 12), 60.1% versus 30.8% (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 10), 58.7% versus 29.7% (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 8), 60.1% versus 30.3% (YMRS < or = 8), and 56.7% versus 29.7% (YMRS < or = 8 plus core items < or = 2) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). The average daily dose of quetiapine in responders was 575 mg/day at Day 21 and 598 mg/day at Day 84. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine was associated with significantly higher response and remission/euthymia rates compared with placebo with most criteria used, in patients with acute mania at the end of both 3 and 12 weeks.

Treatment of agitation and aggression in bipolar mania: efficacy of quetiapine.

OBJECTIVE: Agitation and aggression are potentially disruptive and dangerous features of bipolar mania. This analysis evaluated the effects of quetiapine on agitation and aggression in patients with bipolar I mania. METHODS: Four double-blind, randomized, controlled trials were conducted using similar protocols; 407 patients with bipolar I mania were randomized to quetiapine monotherapy (200-800 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks, and 402 patients were randomized to quetiapine (200-800 mg/day) or placebo in combination with lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP) for 3 or 6 weeks. Measurements of agitation included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Activation subscale, PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale scores, and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) items relevant to agitation. RESULTS: Initial reductions in both the PANSS Activation and PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale scores were noted by Day 4 with quetiapine and placebo. The reduction in PANSS Activation subscale scores was significantly greater with quetiapine monotherapy than placebo first at Day 21 (-3.5 versus -1.4, P<0.001) and also at Day 84 (-4.8 versus -1.2, P<0.001). The improvement in PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale score was significantly greater with quetiapine monotherapy than placebo by Day 14 (P<0.01) and all time points thereafter including Day 21 (-4.0 versus -1.8, P<0.001) and Day 84 (-5.6 versus -1.7, P<0.001). In combination therapy, the mean improvement in PANSS Activation subscale score at Day 21 was numerically but not significantly different with QTP+Li/DVP than PBO+Li/DVP (-4.2 versus -3.2, P=0.087). The mean PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale scores were significantly improved at Day 21 with QTP+Li/DVP versus PBO+Li/DVP (-5.05 versus -3.69, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine is an effective and appropriate treatment choice in managing agitation and aggression associated with bipolar mania.

Rates of remission/euthymia with quetiapine in combination with lithium/divalproex for the treatment of acute mania.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to compare the rates of remission/euthymia in patients with bipolar mania receiving quetiapine in combination with lithium/divalproex (QTP+Li/DVP) versus placebo (PBO) in combination with Li/DVP (PBO+Li/DVP). METHODS: A pooled analysis of two (one 3-week and one 6-week) double-blind studies of a total of 370 patients hospitalized with bipolar I mania who received quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) in combination with Li (mean serum concentration 0.76 mEq/L) or DVP (mean serum concentration 69.5 microg/mL) was performed. For both studies, data were analyzed at Day 21. In addition, for the 6-week study, data were analyzed at Day 42. Five different criteria for remission/euthymia were used: (i) Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score < or = 12; (ii) YMRS score < or = 12 plus a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score < or = 10; (iii) YMRS score < or = 12+MADRS score < or = 8; (iv) YMRS score < or = 8; and (v) YMRS score < or = 8 plus a score < or = 2 for the YMRS core items of Irritability, Speech, Content, and Disruptive/Aggressive Behavior. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis, Day 21 remission rates (YMRS < or = 12) were significantly higher in patients treated with QTP+Li/DVP compared with those who received PBO+Li/DVP (48.7% versus 33.0%, p=0.003). Rates of remission/euthymia (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 10) were similarly improved with QTP+Li/DVP compared with Li/DVP alone (43.2% versus 26.5%, p=0.001). Using the most stringent criteria (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 8), rates of remission/euthymia were again significantly higher with QTP+Li/DVP than with Li/DVP alone (38.4% versus 25.9%, p=0.014). More patients treated with quetiapine met the stringent criterion of YMRS < or = 8 (31.9% versus 24.3%; p=NS). A trend in favor of quetiapine was also observed for the more stringent criterion of YMRS < or = 8 plus core items < or = 2 (28.1% versus 23.2%; p=NS). For the 6-week study, at Day 42, YMRS was < or = 12 in 68.3% of patients treated with QTP+Li/DVP compared with 57.3% of those who received PBO+Li/DVP (p=NS). Respective rates based on the remission criterion of YMRS < or = 8 were 36.5% and 32.3% (p=NS), and with YMRS < or = 8 and core items < or = 2 were 53.8% and 45.8% (p=NS). However, a significant difference was observed between patients treated with QTP+Li/DVP versus those treated with PBO+Li/DVP using criteria of YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 10 (63.5% versus 49.0%, p<0.05) or YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 8 (61.5% versus 46.9%, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: At Days 21 and 42, quetiapine combined with Li/DVP compared to Li/DVP monotherapy yielded significant, sustained improvements in the rate of clinical remission/euthymia in patients with bipolar mania. Longer-term studies are warranted to assess whether quetiapine combined with other mood stabilizing medications can yield even longer-term resolution of symptoms of acute mania while concurrently preventing emergence of depressive symptoms.

Quetiapine in the treatment of acute bipolar mania: efficacy across a broad range of symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: An ideal antimanic therapy is well tolerated and offers full multidimensional symptom relief. The efficacy of quetiapine in the treatment of acute bipolar mania has previously been established. This post-hoc analysis aims to extend our understanding of quetiapine's antimanic efficacy by evaluating its therapeutic effect across the full spectrum of manic symptoms. METHODS: Patient-level data from four similar, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of quetiapine in bipolar disorder patients with DSM-IV acute mania were combined. Two trials investigated quetiapine as monotherapy (twice daily) and two trials assessed the combination of quetiapine with either lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP). Changes in scores on the total Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), and on each of the 11 items comprising the YMRS, were the primary measures of interest in this analysis. Changes in the Supplemental Aggression and Agitation subscales of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were secondary measures analyzed. RESULTS: Quetiapine as monotherapy, or in combination with Li or DVP, was a highly effective treatment for acute mania, as shown by overall change scores in the total YMRS. Patients treated with quetiapine monotherapy exhibited a significantly greater reduction (versus placebo) in YMRS total scores at Day 4 (-3.5 versus -2.2; p=0.021), with an increasing between-group difference reported throughout the duration of the trials at Day 21 (-13.6 versus -7.8; p<0.001) and at study endpoint on Day 84 (-19.0 versus -9.6; p<0.001). Quetiapine was also superior in efficacy to placebo on all categorical (i.e., response and remission rates) and secondary outcome parameters. On each of the 11 YMRS items, including the double-weighted core manic items, quetiapine was significantly superior to placebo (p<0.05). Effect sizes at Day 84 ranged from 0.37 to 0.61. Quetiapine in combination with Li/DVP offered a significant benefit over Li/DVP monotherapy, starting at Day 7 (p<0.05) and continuing to the primary study endpoint on Day 21 (p=0.01). Four of 11 YMRS items improved significantly more on quetiapine combination therapy than on Li/DVP monotherapy. The efficacy of quetiapine in these trials appeared independent of baseline disease severity, the presence of psychosis, and treatment-emergent sedation/somnolence. Quetiapine monotherapy produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the PANSS Activation and the PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale scores. Similar findings were obtained with quetiapine combined with Li or DVP. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bipolar disorder may report severe and complex manic symptoms. The results herein indicate that quetiapine is efficacious across the multiple dimensions of mania, including medically serious symptoms commonly encountered in practice.

Quetiapine in the treatment of acute mania: target dose for efficacious treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the available evidence from randomized clinical trials regarding the effective dose range and optimal dose of quetiapine when treating bipolar I disorder patients with acute mania. METHODS: Patients with acute mania were treated with quetiapine as monotherapy (for 12 weeks) or in combination with lithium (mean serum concentration 0.76 mEq/L) or divalproex (mean serum concentration 69.5 microg/mL) (Li/DVP) (for 3-6 weeks) in four double-blind, placebo-controlled studies according to a predetermined dosing schedule. Guidance for the dosing of quetiapine involved increasing the first day's dose (100 mg/day) by 100 mg on a daily basis until Day 4 (400 mg/day), then adjusting the dose up to 600 mg/day at Day 5, and up to 800 mg/day thereafter. Pooled data from the two monotherapy studies and the two combination therapy studies have been used to evaluate the effective quetiapine dose range. As the dose was flexible, effective dose was estimated by the mean last-week dose among responders. The mean last-week dose was defined as the median dose during the 7 days before the last available Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) assessment. Patients who achieved a > or = 50% decrease in the YMRS total score from baseline to end of treatment with quetiapine were considered responders. Tolerability was assessed from direct patient reports. RESULTS: According to randomized clinical trials, administration of quetiapine compared with placebo achieved a statistically significant improvement in change from baseline YMRS score within the first week and onward, as monotherapy or in combination with Li/DVP. The average quetiapine dose (+/-SD) in responders during the last week of treatment was 575 (+/-175) at Day 21 and 598 (+/-198) mg/day at Day 84 for monotherapy, and 584+/-208 mg/day at Day 21 for combination therapy, with most responders receiving doses within the range of 400-800 mg/day. Dose escalation was rapid, with 92% of patients treated with monotherapy and 80% of patients treated with combination therapy reaching doses of 400 mg/day by Day 4, in accordance with protocol-defined dosing guidance. This dose administration schedule was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The mean last-week median dose among responders suggests that 600 mg/day of quetiapine is an effective target dose in acute mania.

A double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of quetiapine as an add-on therapy to lithium or divalproex for the treatment of bipolar mania.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine combined with lithium or divalproex in the treatment of bipolar mania. Patients were randomized to 6 weeks of quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) and lithium/divalproex (Li/DVP) (target trough serum concentrations of 0.7-1.0 mEq/L and 50-100 microg/mL, respectively) or placebo and lithium/divalproex. Quetiapine+lithium/divalproex treatment (n=104) showed a 2.0-point greater improvement on the primary outcome (change from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale total score at day 21) compared with placebo+lithium/divalproex (n=96), and a 2.8-point greater difference by day 42, but the differences between groups were not statistically significant. Other efficacy measures, however, did show a statistically significant advantage in favor of quetiapine+lithium/divalproex over lithium/divalproex monotherapy at day 42. Improvement of mean Young Mania Rating Scale scores with quetiapine+lithium/divalproex was numerically but not statistically significantly greater than lithium/divalproex monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar mania. Potential reasons for the failure of quetiapine+lithium/divalproex to differentiate from placebo+lithium/divalproex treatment on the primary outcome measure and the implications of this for the treatment of mania and future studies are discussed. Overall, the combination of quetiapine with lithium or divalproex was well tolerated.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of quetiapine or lithium as monotherapy for mania in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy versus placebo for the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder. METHOD: In an international, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week study, patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar I disorder (manic episode) were randomly assigned to treatment with quetiapine (flexibly dosed up to 800 mg/day), placebo, or lithium. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score at day 21. Data were gathered from April 2001 to May 2002. RESULTS: More patients in the quetiapine (72/107) and lithium (67/98) groups completed the study compared with the placebo group (35/97). Improvement (reduction) in YMRS score was significantly greater for quetiapine than placebo at day 7 (-8.03 vs. -4.89; p < .01), and the difference between groups continued to increase over time to day 21 (-14.6 vs. -6.7; p < .001) and to endpoint at day 84 (-20.3 vs. -9.0; p < .001). Significantly more quetiapine patients compared with placebo patients fulfilled YMRS response criteria at day 21 (53.3% vs. 27.4%; p < .001) and at day 84 (72.0% vs. 41.1%; p < .001). Quetiapine was also superior to placebo in efficacy at day 21 and day 84 by all secondary measures. Lithium-treated patients improved significantly compared with placebo patients and similarly to quetiapine-treated patients on the primary efficacy measure. The most common adverse events for quetiapine were dry mouth, somnolence, and weight gain, while lithium was associated with tremor and insomnia. The quetiapine and placebo groups had similar, low levels of extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo in patients with bipolar mania and was well tolerated.

Quetiapine monotherapy for mania associated with bipolar disorder: combined analysis of two international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of quetiapine monotherapy for mania in bipolar disorder by an a priori defined combined analysis of data from two placebo-controlled studies. METHOD: The intent-to-treat (ITT) populations from two studies of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, manic episode, randomised to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) or placebo were combined. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score from baseline to Day 21. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in YMRS to Day 84, YMRS response and remission rates and change from baseline to Days 21 and 84 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar (CGI-BP) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). These endpoints were analysed as continuous variables, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with the baseline as covariate. In order to account for any difference in response between studies, the analyses were stratified by study as a fixed effect, and centre as a random effect. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to analyse binary variables. A chi square test was used to compare the frequency of adverse events between the treatment groups. RESULTS: The combined analysis included a total of 403 patients from two quetiapine monotherapy studies in patients with bipolar I disorder. A significant improvement in YMRS score was observed from Day 4 (p = 0.021) onward in the quetiapine group compared with placebo. The treatment advantage of quetiapine over placebo continued to increase to Day 21 (p < 0.001) and Day 84 (p < 0.001). Significantly more quetiapine-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a response (p < 0.001). The average quetiapine dose in responders was approximately 600 mg daily. Of adverse events occurring in > or = 5% of patients, quetiapine-treated patients had a significantly greater incidence versus placebo of somnolence (16.3% vs. 4.0%), dry mouth (15.8% vs. 3%), weight gain (9.1% vs. 1.5%) and dizziness (6.7% vs. 2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The data from this combined analysis support the results from the individual studies and indicate that quetiapine monotherapy is effective across a broad range of mood symptoms, fast-acting and well tolerated in the treatment of mania.