Donanemab in Japanese Patients with Early Alzheimer's Disease: Subpopulation Analysis of the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Donanemab, a monoclonal antibody directed against an insoluble, modified, N-terminal truncated form of amyloid beta, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with early, symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the phase 3 TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. Here, we report clinical outcomes, biomarkers, and safety results for the Japanese subpopulation. METHODS: TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 (N = 1736) was conducted in eight countries, including Japan (enrollment June 2020-November 2021; database lock April 2023). Participants (60-85 years) with early, symptomatic AD (mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia), Mini-Mental State Examination score 20-28, and confirmed amyloid and tau pathology were randomized 1:1 (stratified by tau status) to intravenous donanemab (700 mg for three doses, then 1400 mg/dose) or placebo every 4 weeks for 72 weeks. Primary outcome was change from baseline to week 76 in integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) score. Other outcomes included clinical measures of cognitive and functional impairment, biomarkers, and safety. RESULTS: Of 88 Japanese participants (43 placebo, 45 donanemab), 7 in each group discontinued. Least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in iADRS score at week 76 was smaller with donanemab than with placebo in the combined (low-medium tau and high tau) and low-medium tau (N = 76) subpopulations (LSM change difference: 4.43 and 3.99, representing 38.8% and 40.2% slowing of disease progression, respectively). Slowing of AD progression with donanemab was also observed for other clinical outcomes. Marked decreases in amyloid plaque and plasma phosphorylated tau 217 were observed; amyloid clearance (< 24.1 Centiloids) was observed in 83.3% of the combined donanemab and 0% of the combined placebo groups. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities of edema/effusions occurred in ten (22.2%) donanemab-treated participants (one [2.2%] symptomatic) and one (2.3%) placebo-treated participant. CONCLUSIONS: The overall efficacy and safety of donanemab in Japanese participants were similar to the global TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04437511.

Long-Term Pain Management and Health Care Resource Use Among an Employed Population in Japan with Knee Osteoarthritis Combined with Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Assess long-term comorbidity burden and pain management patterns among working-age patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) only without low back pain (LBP) (KOA-noLBP) and patients with KOA plus LBP (KOA+LBP) in Japan. METHODS: Retrospective claims data analyses were conducted on data from the Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) database. Adult patients (≥40 years) with a diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) (January 1, 2011-December 31, 2012) and 5 years of follow-up were evaluated. The first claim with a KOA diagnosis defined the index date. Longitudinal pain management patterns were assessed in both cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, 1,828 patients met study criteria (717 with KOA-noLBP; 1,111 with KOA+LBP). The mean age of patients with KOA-noLBP was 52.1 years, and that of patients with KOA+LBP was 53.1 years, with more females in the KOA+LBP cohort (49.4% vs. 55.0%). Regardless of cohort, >90% of patients received pharmacological intervention during the 5-year follow-up period. The most common regimen first received was either topical or oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A higher mean number of pharmaceutical treatments were received by patients in the KOA+LBP cohort (3.6) than by patients in the KOA-noLBP cohort (2.7) during the follow-up period. Regardless of cohort, most of the direct medical cost was derived from medication. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a greater proportion of the JMDC population of working individuals with KOA were comorbid with LBP and received pain-related treatment in the long-term perspective relative to patients with KOA without LBP. Appropriate pain management for both KOA and LBP would be key for effective resource utilization in an aging society facing socioeconomic burdens.

Longitudinal Assessment of Pain Management Among the Employed Japanese Population with Knee Osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: To assess comorbidity burden and pain-management patterns among working-aged patients with knee osteoarthritis only (KOA/O) and patients with knee osteoarthritis plus osteoarthritis at another site (KOA/+) in Japan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective claims data analysis was conducted using the Japan Medical Data Center database. Working-aged adults (aged 40 to 71 years) with 5 years of follow-up and diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, were evaluated. The first claim with a KOA diagnosis defined the index date. Patients were divided into two mutually exclusive cohorts: KOA/O and KOA/+. Longitudinal pain-management patterns during each year of follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2542 patients met study criteria: 1575 KOA/O and 967 KOA/+. Mean age and number of comorbidities were higher among the KOA/+ versus KOA/O cohort. Pharmaceutical treatment was received by 91.5% of patients in the KOA/+ compared with 85.1% of patients in the KOA/O cohort during the first year of follow-up. The most common pharmacological treatment received during the first year of follow-up was either topical or oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for both cohorts. During each year of follow-up, the KOA/+ cohort had greater proportion of patients with at least one health-care encounter (ie, hospital admissions, outpatient and pharmacy visits) and higher direct medical costs compared with the KOA/O cohort. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a greater proportion of the working population with KOA/+ received pain-related treatment compared with patients with KOA/O. Further studies are necessary to evaluate appropriate pain management for both KOA only and KOA with other sites.

Relationship Between Pain Reduction and Improvement in Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Knee Pain Due to Osteoarthritis Receiving Duloxetine: Exploratory Post Hoc Analysis of a Japanese Phase 3 Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: This post hoc analysis of a Japanese phase 3 randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02248480) investigated relationships between changes in pain severity and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in duloxetine-treated patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with knee OA and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain score ≥4 received duloxetine 60 mg/day or placebo for 14 weeks. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated for change in pain severity, as assessed by the BPI, and change in HRQoL, as assessed by the items of the (i) 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36; a generic measure of HRQoL) and (ii) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; an OA-specific measure of HRQoL). RESULTS: After 14 weeks of treatment, there was a significantly greater improvement (p<0.001) for duloxetine (n=177) vs placebo (n=176) in BPI average pain severity score and significantly greater improvements (p<0.01) for duloxetine vs placebo for 5 of the 8 SF-36 domains (including the Role-Physical, Bodily Pain, and Physical Functioning domains) and all 24 individual WOMAC items. The correlation between BPI change from baseline and SF-36 item change from baseline was statistically significant (p<0.05) for 2 of the 8 SF-36 items (Bodily Pain, Physical Functioning) in duloxetine-treated patients. The correlation between BPI change from baseline and WOMAC item change from baseline was statistically significant for 22 of the 24 WOMAC items in duloxetine-treated patients. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis suggested that the pain reduction observed in duloxetine-treated patients with knee OA was associated with improvements in OA-specific aspects of HRQoL, ie, pain and physical functioning.

The Clinical Relevance of Pain Severity Changes: Is There Any Difference Between Asian and Caucasian Patients With Osteoarthritis Pain?

The objective of the present analysis was to determine whether changes in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain scores by patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) category and the cut-off for clinically important difference (CID) were different between Asian and Caucasian patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis. This analysis used data from 3 (Caucasian) and 2 (Asian) randomized, placebo-controlled, 10- to 14-week duloxetine studies for the treatment of patients ≥40 years of age with osteoarthritis pain. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to characterize the association between changes in BPI average pain scores and PGI-I levels at study endpoint. The CID was characterized by PGI-I, and the cut-off point for CID in BPI average pain scores was determined by the intersection of a 45-degree tangent line with each ROC curve. Data from 668 Asian and 868 Caucasian patients were available for analysis. Baseline BPI average pain ratings including worst and least pain were comparable between Asians and Caucasians. Ratings for percentage change from baseline to endpoint for BPI average pain scores in Asian patients and Caucasian patients were similar across the 7 PGI-I categories, regardless of age, gender, study, and treatment. The ROC analysis results of cut-off points in BPI average pain scores demonstrated the raw change cut-off was -3.0, and percentage change cut-off was -40% for both Asian and Caucasian patients. Overall, the present analysis concludes changes in BPI average pain scores by PGI-I category and the cut-off for CID were similar for Asian and Caucasian patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis.

Relationship Between Pain Alleviation and Disease-specific Health-related Quality of Life Measures in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Receiving Duloxetine: Exploratory Post Hoc Analysis of a Japanese Phase 3 Randomized Study.

This post hoc analysis of a Japanese phase 3 randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01855919) investigated relationships between pain severity (assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]) and disease-specific health-related quality of life (assessed by the 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ-24]) in duloxetine-treated patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: Patients with CLBP duration >6 months and BPI average score ≥4 received duloxetine 60 mg/d (N = 230) or placebo (N = 226) for 14 weeks. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated for (1) BPI change from baseline and RDQ item change from baseline and (2) BPI change from baseline and the RDQ item baseline score in duloxetine-treated patients. RESULTS: Duloxetine treatment significantly improved the RDQ-24 total score compared with placebo; the greatest improvements were observed for RDQ02, RDQ17, and RDQ13. The strongest correlations between BPI change from baseline and RDQ item change from baseline were for RDQ13, RDQ23, and RDQ10. The correlation coefficients for the correlations between BPI change from baseline and the RDQ item baseline score were generally small. DISCUSSION: This post hoc analysis suggested that improvement in pain severity was associated with improvement in the RDQ-24 total score and in some individual RDQ items in duloxetine-treated patients with CLBP. Furthermore, positive responses to duloxetine in terms of the RDQ13, RDQ23, and RDQ10 items may correlate with better pain responses. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: The study described in this manuscript was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01855919).

Analysis of HAM-D scores and working ability in an observational study of Japanese patients with major depressive disorder and painful physical symptoms treated with duloxetine or SSRI monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score and psychiatrists' judgment of working ability in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and painful physical symptoms. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational, 12-week study in patients who received duloxetine or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Patients were ≥20 years old, resided in Japan, and had at least moderate depression (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology ≥16) and at least moderate painful physical symptoms (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form average pain ≥3). The main outcome in this post-hoc analysis was the HAM-D17 cutoff best corresponding with patients' working ability according to the investigator's judgment. Area under the receiver-operator curve was used to determine the time point with the strongest relationship between HAM-D17 and working ability. The optimal HAM-D17 cutoff was determined based on the maximum of sensitivity (true positive rate) minus ([1 minus specificity] [true negative rate]). For the evaluation of binary data, a mixed effects model with repeated measures analysis was used. RESULTS: For the estimation of the HAM-D17 cutoff, the area under the receiver-operator curve was maximal at 12 weeks, when a HAM-D17 score of 6 resulted in the best correspondence with working ability in the combined study population. At 12 weeks, a HAM-D17 score of 6 also resulted in the maximum predictive ability in each of the two treatment groups separately. For predicted working ability at 12 weeks, 52.7% of duloxetine-treated patients achieved the HAM-D17 cutoff of ≤6, whereas 48.5% of SSRIs-treated patients achieved HAM-D17 ≤6 (P=0.477). CONCLUSION: In this study of patients with major depressive disorder and painful physical symptoms, a HAM-D17 score ≤6 corresponded best with patients' working ability. This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that a HAM-D17 cutoff of ≤7 may overestimate functional recovery from MDD.

Duloxetine in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in Japan: a randomized, doubleblind, noninferiority comparative study with pregabalin.

PURPOSE: Duloxetine and pregabalin are recommended as first-line treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). However, studies have not reported a direct comparison between duloxetine and pregabalin. We conducted a postmarketing, randomized, double-blind study to assess the noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin after 12 weeks of treatment in adult patients with DPNP in Japan (NCT02417935). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 303) with distal symmetrical DPNP were randomized to and were administered duloxetine (40-60 mg/day) or pregabalin (300-600 mg/day). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score (numeric rating scale [NRS]). Noninferiority of duloxetine compared with pregabalin was assessed with the primary endpoint at week 12. Secondary measures, including night pain and worst pain, Brief Pain Inventory-Severity and Interference rating short form (BPI-SF), Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), health outcome measures (EuroQol 5-Dimension index and VAS), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: For the 24-hour NRS average pain score, the difference between the duloxetine and pregabalin groups was 0.072 (95% CI: - 0.295, 0.439), and the upper bound of the 95% CI (0.439) did not exceed the predefined noninferiority margin (0.51), at the end of the study period. For secondary outcome measures (night pain, worst pain, BPI-SF, CGI-I, PGI-I, NPSI) and health outcome measures, both the duloxetine and pregabalin treatment groups showed an improvement from baseline with no significant between-group difference. Duloxetine and pregabalin were well tolerated and the safety profiles were consistent with previously reported results. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the noninferior efficacy of duloxetine compared with pregabalin in the treatment of adult patients with DPNP. The safety analyses showed an acceptable tolerability based on safety profiles of duloxetine and pregabalin.

Efficacy of duloxetine by prior NSAID use in the treatment of chronic osteoarthritis knee pain: A post hoc subgroup analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: A previously conducted placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 study of 353 Japanese patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) showed significant improvements for duloxetine vs placebo in pain and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02248480). Reported here are post hoc subgroup analyses evaluating the efficacy of duloxetine according to the pattern of prior nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use. METHODS: Patients with knee OA pain received once-daily duloxetine or placebo for 14 weeks. Pain was evaluated using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and HRQoL was evaluated using the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Patients were divided into four subgroups based on their prior NSAID use: (i) no prior NSAID use; (ii) low-frequency NSAID use (<14 days/month); (iii) high-frequency transdermal NSAID use (transdermal NSAIDs only; ≥14 days/month for the 3 months before study entry); and (iv) high-frequency other NSAID use (eg, oral NSAIDs only, both oral and transdermal NSAIDs; ≥14 days/month for the 3 months before study entry). RESULTS: In each of the four prior NSAID use subgroups, there were greater reductions in BPI average pain severity score for duloxetine vs placebo at all timepoints during the 14-week treatment period; the treatment*prior NSAID use interaction was not statistically significant. In each subgroup, the proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in BPI average pain severity score was higher for duloxetine vs placebo. In each subgroup, there were greater reductions in WOMAC total score for duloxetine vs placebo at all timepoints; the treatment*prior NSAID use interaction was not statistically significant. In each subgroup, there were greater reductions at Week 14 in WOMAC pain, stiffness, physical function, and total scores for duloxetine vs placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine was consistently effective with respect to pain relief and HRQoL in Japanese patients with knee OA pain, regardless of the pattern of prior NSAID use.

Predicting treatment outcomes of major depressive disorder by early improvement in painful physical symptoms: a pooled analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine.

OBJECTIVE: We determined if early improvement in painful physical symptoms (PPS) can be a predictor of remission in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: We included randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trials of duloxetine (40-60 mg/day) versus placebo for the acute treatment of MDD with associated PPS. Only those studies using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form (BPI-SF) were included. Three studies met all criteria and included male or female outpatients aged ≥18 years who met the diagnostic criteria for MDD, had a MADRS total score ≥20, and had at least moderate pain (BPI-SF average pain score ≥3). Positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) of early improvement in PPS for remission were analyzed. PPVs were the proportion of patients with remission (MADRS total score ≤10) at week 8 out of patients who experienced early improvement in BPI-SF average pain score (≥30% decrease from baseline at week 1, 2, or 4). NPVs were the proportion of patients without remission (MADRS total score >10) at week 8 out of patients who did not experience early improvement in PPS. RESULTS: Data from 1,320 patients were analyzed (duloxetine N=641 and placebo N=679). The overall remission (MADRS total score ≤10 at week 8) rate for the duloxetine group was significantly higher than the placebo group (38.5% vs 21.8%; P<0.0001). For both treatment groups, PPVs of early improvement in BPI-SF (30% improvement from baseline) were higher than the overall remission rate for all weeks examined (weeks 1, 2, and 4); in general, NPVs of early improvement in BPI-SF for nonremission were higher than the overall nonremission rate. CONCLUSION: Early improvement in PPS can be a useful clinical indicator of subsequent treatment outcome for MDD patients with associated PPS.

Duloxetine 60 mg for chronic low back pain: post hoc responder analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in chronic low back pain (CLBP). We examined the predictors of response to duloxetine for CLBP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from 4 double-blind, ran-domized, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine (60 mg/day for 12-14 weeks) in adult patients with CLBP. Primary outcome was proportion of patients with ≥30% reduction in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain ("pain reduction") at 12-14 weeks. The proportion of patients with ≥30% and ≥50% (secondary outcome) pain reduction in duloxetine and placebo groups was compared. Variables for responder analyses were early improvement (≥15% pain reduction at Week 2), sex, age, baseline BPI average pain score, duration of CLBP, and number of painful body sites according to the Michigan Body Map (≥2 vs 1 [isolated CLBP]; 1 trial); relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Compared with placebo (n = 653), a greater proportion of duloxetine-treated patients (n = 642) achieved ≥30% (59.7% vs 47.8%; P < 0.001) and ≥50% pain reduction (48.6% vs 35.1%; P < 0.001). Among duloxetine-treated patients, early improvement was associated with greater likelihood of ≥30% (RR [95% CI], 2.91 [2.30-3.67]) or ≥50% (3.24 [2.44-4.31]) pain reduction. Women were slightly more likely than men to achieve ≥30% (RR [95% CI], 1.14 [1.00-1.30]) or ≥50% (1.17 [0.99-1.38]) pain reduction. Response rates were similar between age, CLBP duration, and baseline BPI average pain score subgroups. Patients with ≥2 painful sites were more likely to respond to duloxetine 60 mg relative to placebo than patients with isolated CLBP (RR, duloxetine vs placebo [95% CI]: ≥30% reduction, ≥2 painful sites 1.40 [1.18-1.66], isolated CLBP 1.07 [0.78-1.48]; ≥50% reduction, ≥2 painful sites 1.51 [1.20-1.89], isolated CLBP 1.23 [0.81-1.88]). CONCLUSION: Early pain reduction was indicative of overall response. Patients with multiple painful sites had more benefit from duloxetine than patients with isolated CLBP.

An observational study of duloxetine versus SSRI monotherapy in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder: subgroup analyses of treatment effectiveness for pain, depressive symptoms, and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how clinical and demographic patient baseline characteristics influence effectiveness of duloxetine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment, in real-world Japanese clinical settings of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and associated painful physical symptoms (PPS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, 12-week, prospective, observational study in patients with MDD (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology ≥16) and at least moderate PPS (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF] average pain ≥3). Patients received duloxetine or SSRIs (escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, or fluvoxamine). Assessments were made by using BPI-SF average pain, 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17), EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, Social Adaptation Self-Evaluation Scale, Global Assessment of Functioning, and ability to work. Predefined subgroups included the number of previous episodes of depression (0 vs ≥1), baseline BPI-SF average pain score (≤6 vs >6), baseline HAM-D17 total score (≤18 vs >18), baseline HAM-D17 retardation (≤7 vs >7) and anxiety somatic subscale scores (≤6 vs >6), and age (<65 vs ≥65 years). RESULTS: Treatment effectiveness was evaluated in 523 patients (duloxetine N=273, SSRIs N=250). Treatment with duloxetine was superior to SSRIs on most outcome measures in patients experiencing their first depressive episode, those with higher baseline PPS levels, and in patients with more severe baseline depression. This was also the case for older patients. In patients with less severe depression, SSRI treatment tended to show more improvements in depression and quality of life measures versus duloxetine treatment. CONCLUSION: These preplanned subgroup analyses of data from a prospective observational study suggest that, for Japanese MDD patients with PPS, duloxetine is more effective than SSRIs in patients with a first episode of MDD, with more severe depression, or more severe PPS.

An observational study of duloxetine versus SSRI monotherapy for the treatment of painful physical symptoms in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder: primary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of duloxetine monotherapy, in comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) monotherapy, in the treatment of painful physical symptoms (PPS) in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: This was a multicenter, 12-week prospective, observational study. This study enrolled MDD patients with at least moderate PPS, defined as a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) average pain score (item 5) ≥3. Patients were treated with duloxetine or SSRIs (escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, or fluvoxamine) for 12 weeks, and PPS were assessed by BPI-SF average pain score. The primary outcome was early improvement in the BPI-SF average pain score at 4 weeks post-baseline. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were evaluated for treatment effectiveness (duloxetine N=273, SSRIs N=250). The difference in BPI-SF average pain score between the two groups was not statistically significant at 4 weeks post-baseline, the primary endpoint (least-squares mean change from baseline [95% confidence interval]: duloxetine, -2.8 [-3.1, -2.6]; SSRIs, -2.5 [-2.8, -2.3]; P=0.166). There was a numerical advantage for duloxetine in improvement from 4 to 12 weeks post-baseline, and the difference was statistically significant at 8 weeks post-baseline (least-squares mean change from baseline [95% confidence interval]: duloxetine, -3.6 [-3.9, -3.3]; SSRIs, -3.1 [-3.4, -2.8]; P=0.023). The 30% and 50% responder rates were significantly higher in patients treated with duloxetine at 4 and 8 weeks post-baseline. There were no serious adverse events experienced by duloxetine-treated patients. The rate of discontinuations due to adverse events was similar for duloxetine and the SSRIs (1.0% and 0.8% of patients, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this observational study, BPI-SF improvement was not significantly different at 4 weeks, the primary endpoint; however, patients treated with duloxetine tended to show better improvement in PPS compared to those treated with SSRIs.

Assessment of direct analgesic effect of duloxetine for chronic low back pain: post hoc path analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Comorbid depression and depressive symptoms are common in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Duloxetine is clinically effective in major depressive disorder and several chronic pain states, including CLBP. The objective of this post hoc meta-analysis was to assess direct and indirect analgesic efficacy of duloxetine for patients with CLBP in previous clinical trials. METHODS: Post hoc path analyses were conducted of 3 randomized, double-blind, clinical studies of patients receiving duloxetine or placebo for CLBP. The primary outcome measure for pain was the Brief Pain Inventory, average pain score. A secondary outcome measure, the Beck Depression Inventory-II, was used for depressive symptoms. The changes in score from baseline to endpoint were determined for each index. Path analyses were employed to calculate the proportion of analgesia that may be attributed to a direct effect of duloxetine on pain. RESULTS: A total of 851 patients (400 duloxetine and 451 placebo) were included in this analysis. Duloxetine significantly improved pain scores compared with placebo (p<0.001). It also significantly improved depressive scores compared with placebo (p=0.015). Path analyses showed that 91.1% of the analgesic effect of duloxetine could be attributed to a direct analgesic effect, and 8.9% to its antidepressant effect. Similar results were obtained when data were evaluated at weeks 4 and 7, and when patients were randomized to subgroups based on baseline pain scores, baseline depressive symptoms scores, and gender. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine significantly improved pain in patients with CLBP. Path analyses results suggest that duloxetine produced analgesia mainly through mechanisms directly impacting pain modulation rather than lifting depressive symptoms. This effect was consistent across all subgroups tested.

Is duloxetine's effect on painful physical symptoms in depression an indirect result of improvement of depressive symptoms? Pooled analyses of three randomized controlled trials.

In treating Major Depressive Disorder with associated painful physical symptoms (PPS), the effect of duloxetine on PPS has been shown to decompose into a direct effect on PPS and an indirect effect on PPS via depressive symptoms (DS) improvement. To evaluate the changes in relative contributions of the direct and indirect effects over time, we analyzed pooled data from 3 randomized double-blind studies comparing duloxetine 60 mg/d with placebo in patients with major depressive disorder and PPS. Changes from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form average pain score were assessed over 8 weeks. Path analysis examined the (1) direct effect of treatment on PPS and/or indirect effect on PPS via DS improvement and (2) direct effect of treatment on DS and/or indirect effect on DS via PPS improvement. At week 1, the direct effect of duloxetine on PPS (75.3%) was greater than the indirect effect through DS improvement (24.7%) but became less (22.6%) than the indirect effect (77.4%) by week 8. Initially, the direct effect of duloxetine on PPS was markedly greater than its indirect effect, whereas later the indirect effect predominated. Conversely, at week 1, the direct effect of treatment on DS (46.4%) was less than the indirect effect (53.6%), and by week 8 it superseded (62.6%) the indirect effect (37.4%). Thus, duloxetine would relieve PPS directly in the initial phase and indirectly via improving DS in the later phase.

Correlation between pain response and improvements in patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life in duloxetine-treated patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether quality of life (QoL) improvement in duloxetine-treated patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) correlates with the extent of pain relief. METHODS: Pooled data from three multicountry, double-blind, 12-week, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine-treated (duloxetine 60 mg once daily; total number =335) patients with DPNP were analyzed. Based on improvement in 24-hour average pain scores, patients were stratified into four groups. Improvement in QoL, which was measured as the change from baseline in two patient-reported health outcome measures (Short Form [SF]-36 and five-dimension version of the EuroQol Questionnaire [EQ-5D]), was evaluated and compared among the four groups. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the correlation between improvement in pain scores and improvement in QoL. RESULTS: The group with more pain improvement generally showed greater mean change from baseline in all of the SF-36 scale scores and on the EQ-5D index. Pearson's correlation coefficients ranged from 0.114 to 0.401 for the SF-36 scale scores (P<0.05), and it was 0.271 for the EQ-5D (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Improvement in pain scores was positively correlated with improvement in QoL and patient-reported outcomes in duloxetine-treated patients.

Remission, response, and relapse rates in patients with acute schizophrenia treated with olanzapine monotherapy or other atypical antipsychotic monotherapy: 12-month prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: To compare the rates of antipsychotic response, remission, and relapse in patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine or other antipsychotics in usual clinical care in Japan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis of a 12-month, prospective, noninterventional study examined outcomes for 1,089 inpatients and outpatients with schizophrenia who initiated antipsychotic monotherapy. All treatment decisions, including medication choice, were left to the discretion of the treating physician. The rates of treatment response, relapse, and 6-month sustained remission were compared between olanzapine monotherapy (OLZ) and other anti-psychotic monotherapy (OAN), and between OLZ and other atypical antipsychotic monotherapy (OAT). Visit-wise comparisons of treatment response and remission were examined using repeated-measures logistic regressions. Propensity scores were used to control for potential baseline differences between groups. RESULTS: Response rates were higher for OLZ patients and relapse rates were consistently lower for OLZ patients, however the differences were not statistically significant. Rates of 6-month sustained remission were significantly higher for OLZ than OAN patients (P=0.032) and for OLZ than OAT patients (P=0.041). An exploratory analysis of OLZ and OAN comparison found outpatients treated with OLZ or OAN had similar sustained remission rates (OLZ: 22.2%, OAN: 22.8%), while inpatients treated with OLZ had significantly higher sustained remission rates than inpatients treated with OAN (OLZ: 17.1%, OAN: 6.6%, odds ratio [95% confidence interval] =3.54 [2.00-6.25]). CONCLUSION: In usual care in Japan, treating the acute symptoms of schizophrenia with olanzapine was not found to be significantly different for response and relapse rates; however, treatment with olanzapine was found to have significantly greater sustained remission rates than treatment with other antipsychotics. In the inpatient setting, where patients tend to be more severe and difficult to manage, olanzapine treatment may lead to higher sustained remission rates than other antipsychotics.

Efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar mania with mixed features defined by DSM-5.

BACKGROUND: These analyses compared efficacy of olanzapine in patients with bipolar mania with or without mixed features, as defined in the DSM-5. METHODS: Pooled data from 3 placebo-controlled olanzapine studies in patients having bipolar I disorder with manic/mixed episode were analyzed (N=228 olanzapine; N=219 placebo). Patients were categorized for mixed features by number of concurrent depressive symptoms at baseline (0, 1, and 2 [category A; without mixed features], and ≥3 [category B; with mixed features]), as determined by HAM-D17 item score ≥1. Depressive symptoms corresponded to 6 HAM-D17 items in the DSM-5 definition of manic episode with mixed features. Primary efficacy was evaluated by changes in the baseline-to-3-week YMRS total score. RESULTS: Patients were categorized into A (N=322; 72.0%) or B (N=125; 28.0%). Mean baseline YMRS total scores were 28.1 in category A and 27.8 in category B. Least-squares mean change of YMRS total scores in categories A and B (olanzapine versus placebo) were -11.78 versus -6.86 and -13.21 versus -4.72, respectively. Patients in the olanzapine- compared with placebo-group experienced a greater decrease in YMRS total score for both categories (p<0.001). An interaction between mixed features and treatment was seen in YMRS change at a 0.3 significance level (p=0.175). LIMITATIONS: The results are from post-hoc analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine was efficacious in the treatment of bipolar I mania, in patients both with and without mixed features, defined by DSM-5; however, greater efficacy was observed in patients with mixed features having more severe depressive symptoms.

Efficacy of olanzapine monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar depression with mixed features.

BACKGROUND: This analysis investigated the correlations between the efficacy of olanzapine monotherapy and the number of concurrent manic symptoms in patients treated for bipolar depression. METHODS: Pooled data from 2 placebo-controlled olanzapine studies in patients with bipolar I depression were analyzed (total 1214 patients; 690 olanzapine monotherapy patients and 524 placebo patients). Patients were categorized for mixed features by the number of concurrent manic symptoms at baseline (0, 1 or 2, and ≥3, respectively, as measured by a Young Mania Rating Scale item score ≥1). Efficacy was evaluated by change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline to 6 weeks. RESULTS: Least-squares mean differences between olanzapine and placebo in the change of MADRS total scores were -3.76 (p=0.002), -3.20 (p<0.001), and -3.44 (p=0.002) for mixed features 0, 1 or 2, and ≥3, respectively. The response rates for olanzapine versus (vs.) placebo were 52.6% vs. 39.8%, 50.3% vs. 40.0%, and 42.2% vs. 33.7% for mixed features 0, 1 or 2, and ≥3, respectively. The remission rates for olanzapine vs. placebo group were 46.1% vs. 34.3%, 39.5% vs. 32.0%, and 34.8% vs. 24.1% for mixed features 0, 1 or 2, and ≥3, respectively. No significant interaction between mixed features and treatment was seen in the MADRS changes or response and remission rates. LIMITATIONS: Post hoc analyses of the data from 2 previous randomized clinical studies. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine monotherapy was shown to be effective in the treatment of bipolar depression irrespective of the presence of concurrent manic symptoms.

Safety and efficacy of olanzapine in the long-term treatment of Japanese patients with bipolar I disorder, depression: an integrated analysis.

AIM: Safety and efficacy of long-term olanzapine treatment in Japanese patients with bipolar depression were assessed. METHODS: An integrated analysis of data from two studies was performed in olanzapine-treated patients (n = 165) with bipolar depression. Study 1 was a 6-week, double-blind, global study. Patients were randomly assigned to olanzapine or placebo followed by 18 weeks of open-label treatment. Study 2 was an open-label extension of Study 1 involving only Japanese patients. Patients assigned to Pre-olanzapine and Pre-placebo in Study 1 were treated for 24 weeks (total olanzapine exposure 42 or 48 weeks) and newly recruited patients (New-olanzapine) were treated for 48 weeks. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events and changes in metabolic parameters. Efficacy outcome was assessed with Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of patients completed the 42- or 48-week olanzapine treatment period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was weight increased (47.9%). Significant increases were seen in weight (3.5 kg), and in fasting glucose (3.5 mg/dL), fasting total cholesterol (8.1 mg/dL), and fasting triglycerides (35.1 mg/dL). Remission rates (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≤12 at any time) were 79.8% for the Pre-olanzapine group, 90.2% for the Pre-placebo group, and 85.0% for the New-olanzapine group. No patents developed mania during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of olanzapine in a Japanese population with bipolar depression is associated with increases in weight and fasting metabolic measures, and also with improved depressive symptoms with avoidance of mania. Clinicians must carefully consider the benefits and risks of long-term therapy with olanzapine.