Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis Maintain Stable Response with No or Minimal Fluctuations with 1 Year of Lebrikizumab Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Lebrikizumab is a novel monoclonal antibody with established efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in multiple Phase 3 trials. One of the ultimate treatment goals for patients with moderate-to-severe AD is to achieve stable disease control without concern for planning future life events. METHODS: In ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, lebrikizumab-treated patients meeting the protocol-defined response criteria at Week 16 were re-randomized 2:2:1 to receive lebrikizumab every 2 weeks (Q2W), lebrikizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W), or placebo Q2W (lebrikizumab withdrawal) for 36 additional weeks. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated the proportions of patients with no or minimal fluctuations of efficacy during the 36-week maintenance period and plotted individual patient trajectories. We defined no or minimal fluctuations as achieving and maintaining the defined endpoint (≥ 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI 75], ≥ 90% improvement in EASI, Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] ≥ 4-point improvement, or Pruritus NRS ≥ 3-point improvement) for ≥ 80% of the study visits. If patients used rescue medication, discontinued treatment, or transferred to the escape arm, data collected at or after the event were imputed as non-response. RESULTS: The proportions of lebrikizumab responders who maintained EASI 75 with no or minimal fluctuations were 70.8% (lebrikizumab Q2W), 71.2% (lebrikizumab Q4W), and 60.0% (lebrikizumab withdrawal). Of the patients with baseline Pruritus NRS ≥ 4 and who achieved ≥ 4-point improvement at Week 16, 66.1% (lebrikizumab Q2W), 62.7% (lebrikizumab Q4W), and 55.2% (lebrikizumab withdrawal) maintained ≥ 4-point Pruritus NRS improvement with no or minimal fluctuations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who met the response criteria at Week 16 and continued treatment with lebrikizumab Q2W or Q4W demonstrated a stable response with no or minimal fluctuations of efficacy in measures of skin and itch up to Week 52. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04146363 (ADvocate1) and NCT04178967 (ADvocate2).

Atopic dermatitis, also known as atopic eczema (or just eczema), is a common skin disease that causes itchy, dry skin. Patients with eczema are often unsure of when disease flares will happen, even while receiving treatment. In two global studies, ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, lebrikizumab improved the signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe eczema after 16 weeks of treatment. Most of these patients also saw improvement up to 52 weeks. We wanted to know if patients continued to feel better between Week 16 and Week 52. Patients who responded to lebrikizumab after 16 weeks were given lebrikizumab every 2 weeks, lebrikizumab every 4 weeks, or placebo every 2 weeks. We tested how many patients experienced stable response to therapy, which we said was maintaining the same level of improvement on skin signs and itch symptoms for at least 80% of study visits from Week 16 to Week 52. In patients treated with lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, we saw that about seven of every ten patients maintained a stable response in skin improvement and about six of every ten patients maintained stable response in itch symptoms. In patients who stopped lebrikizumab therapy, six out of every ten patients maintained a stable skin improvement and more than five of every ten patients maintained a stable improvement in itch symptoms. In ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, most lebrikizumab-treated patients showed a stable response over time on skin and itch with dosing every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks.

Stable Response and Sustained Improvement of Itch and Sleep Symptoms in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis Treated with Lebrikizumab over 52 Weeks.

BACKGROUND: Lebrikizumab demonstrated significant improvement versus placebo for measures of skin clearance and patient-reported outcomes at weeks 16 and 52 in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). We report the sustained impact of lebrikizumab monotherapy, over 52 weeks and between visits, on the frequency of itch and sleep loss symptoms, as assessed by Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: In ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, Week-16 lebrikizumab responders (EASI75 or IGA 0/1 with ≥ 2-point improvement and without rescue medication) were randomized to lebrikizumab every 2 weeks (Q2W), every 4 weeks (Q4W), or placebo for 36 weeks. This pooled analysis reports improvement from Week 16 to 52 in patients achieving POEM response 0 (no days) or 1 (1-2 days) for Items 1 (itch) and 2 (sleep disturbance) for the lebrikizumab Q2W and Q4W treatment arms. Observed (excluding data collected after treatment discontinuation, rescue medication use, or patient transfer to escape arm) results were reported. RESULTS: At Week 16, for lebrikizumab Q2W and Q4W, 35.9% (n = 37/103) and 39.3% (n = 42/107) of patients responded 0 or 1 to Item 1 of POEM (Itch) and 12.6% (n = 13/103) and 12.1% (n = 13/107) responded 0. A total of 66.0% (n = 68/103) and 72.6% (n = 77/106) of patients responded 0 or 1 to Item 2 of POEM (Sleep) and 37.9% (n = 39/103) and 44.3% (n = 47/106) responded 0, respectively. By Week 52, for lebrikizumab Q2W and Q4W, 44.6% (n = 29/65) and 48.0% (n = 36/75) responded 0 or 1 to Item 1 of POEM (Itch), and 21.5% (n = 14/65) and 18.7% (n = 14/75) of patients responded 0. A total of 83.1% (n = 54/65) and 78.4% (n = 58/74) responded 0 or 1 to Item 2 of POEM (Sleep), and 67.7% (n = 44/65) and 59.5% (n = 44/74) responded 0, respectively. CONCLUSION: Weekly POEM responses for itch and sleep disturbance remained stable between doses and visits, and continued to improve from Week 16 through 52, in lebrikizumab-treated patients, demonstrating consistent improvement over time for key AD symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ADvocate1 (NCT04146363) and ADvocate2 (NCT04178967).

Lebrikizumab Improves Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease for which signs and symptoms have a negative impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL) and mental health. Here, we assess the impact of lebrikizumab on QoL and mental health after 16 weeks of treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: Data were analyzed over 16 weeks from two separate phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, monotherapy trials (ADvocate1 and ADvocate2). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the following measures: Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS), EQ-5D-5L index scores (UK and US), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety, and PROMIS Depression. RESULTS: Treatment with lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks in two studies led to statistically significant improvements (based on nominal p values) versus placebo in DLQI since week 4 (the first timepoint assessed) for the following measures: change from baseline in DLQI total score (ADvocate1 - 7.8 vs - 2.8; ADvocate2 - 7.3 vs - 3.9), proportion of patients with DLQI ≥ 4-point improvement (ADvocate1 69.5% vs 36.2%; ADvocate2 60.5% vs 42.6%), DLQI total score ≤ 5 (ADvocate1 36.7% vs 8.8%; ADvocate2 29.6% vs 10.8%), and DLQI (0, 1) (ADvocate1 12.3% vs 1.7%; ADvocate2 9.2% vs 1.7%). Improvements in DLQI measures, EQ-5D-5L index scores (UK and US), and EQ-5D-5L VAS were sustained through week 16. Additionally, lebrikizumab improved PROMIS Anxiety and PROMIS Depression scores, and improvements were higher in patients with at least a mild score (≥ 55) versus placebo for PROMIS Anxiety (ADvocate1 - 7.43 vs - 1.51; ADvocate2 - 4.95 vs - 0.82) and PROMIS Depression (ADvocate1 - 7.42 vs - 2.46; ADvocate2 - 4.28 vs - 2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with monotherapy 250 mg lebrikizumab for 16 weeks provided clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes related to QoL and mental health for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Lebrikizumab-treated patients reported improvements in DLQI as early as week 4, the first measure since baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration NCT04146363 (ADvocate1) and NCT04178967 (ADvocate2).

Improvement of head and neck symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with baricitinib based on five Phase III clinical trials

Background: In adults with atopic dermatitis (AD), head and/or neck involvement is frequent, bothersome, and impacts quality of life, however, long-term topical corticosteroids (TCS) are contraindicated for this difficult-to-treat region. Baricitinib, an oral, selective, reversible inhibitor of Janus kinase 1/2 has demonstrated efficacy in adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Objectives: For this post hoc analysis, data from five Phase III trials were used to investigate the efficacy of baricitinib in patients with head and neck involvement. Materials & Methods: Data were obtained from BREEZE-AD1, -AD2, -AD4, -AD5, and -AD7; Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies conducted in patients ≥18 years with moderate-to-severe AD. BREEZE-AD1, -AD2, and -AD5 evaluated baricitinib as monotherapy, and BREEZE-AD4 and -AD7 evaluated baricitinib in combination with TCS, topical calcineurin inhibitors, or topical PDE-4 inhibitors, where available. The proportion of patients with improvement of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score from baseline of ≥50% (EASI50) and ≥75% (EASI75), as well as head/neck EASI50 and EASI75 and erythema head/neck EASI50 and EASI75 response rates were assessed up to Week 16. Results: Across the studies, 93-98% of patients had head/neck involvement at baseline (EASI head/neck score ≥1). Baricitinib was similarly effective based on EASI total score for the entire body in all studies. In the monotherapy studies, the proportion of patients achieving head/neck EASI50 and EASI75 scores was significantly higher for baricitinib 2-mg and 4-mg versus placebo at Weeks 1 and 16. Conclusion: Baricitinib 2-mg and 4-mg treatment showed rapid and substantial reduction in AD head and neck severity, including erythema.

Rapid Improvement in Skin Pain Severity and Its Impact on Quality of Life in Adult Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis From a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Baricitinib Phase 3 Study.

BACKGROUND: Skin pain (discomfort/soreness) is a common symptom associated with atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate rapid changes in skin pain severity with baricitinib, and its impact on patient quality of life (QoL) in adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were inadequate responders to topical therapy. METHODS: Adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were inadequate responders to topical therapies (N = 440, BREEZE-AD5 [NCT03435081]) were randomized to once-daily placebo, baricitinib 1 mg, or baricitinib 2 mg for 16 weeks. Change in Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores were assessed for the randomized population. Skin Pain NRS and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were assessed for Skin Pain Response groups and patients with Body Surface Area (BSA) 10% to 50%. RESULTS: Skin Pain NRS improvement was significant versus placebo by day 1 baricitinib 2 mg (least squares mean [LSM] difference -4.4%, P = .048) and by day 2 for baricitinib 1 mg (-6.7%, P = .011). As measured weekly, improvement was significant starting at Week 1 and remained significant through Week 16 for both doses. At Week 16, 70.9% of Skin Pain NRS responders vs 10.4% of nonresponders had a clinically meaningful improvement in DLQI (P < .0001). At week 16, LSM DLQI change from baseline was -11.1 for all Skin Pain NRS responders versus -3.5 for nonresponders (P < .0001). Patients with BSA 10% to 50% showed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate-to-severe AD, treated with baricitinib, reported rapid improvements in skin pain severity by day 1 for baricitinib 2 mg and day 2 for baricitinib 1 mg and remained effective through 16 weeks of treatment, which positively impacted patient QoL.

Onset of Symptom Relief Reported in Daily Diaries of Patients With Atopic Dermatitis Treated With Baricitinib in a United States Clinical Trial (BREEZE-AD5).

BACKGROUND: Itch and sleep disturbance due to itch are burdensome symptoms associated with atopic dermatitis (AD). Rapid onset of action is important for AD treatments to improve quality of life and relieve suffering. OBJECTIVES: This subanalysis evaluated how quickly baricitinib 1-mg and 2-mg reduced itch and associated sleep disturbance during the first 7 days after treatment initiation in a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: Adult patients with AD were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo (N = 147), baricitinib 1 mg (N = 147) or baricitinib 2 mg (N = 146). Patients kept daily diaries, completing the Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) (itch severity from 0 = no itch to 10 = worst itch imaginable) and the Atopic Dermatitis Sleep Scale (ADSS) to measure sleep disturbance (number of nighttime awakenings because of itch). Mixed model repeated measures analysis was used to analyze change from day 1 to day 7 values. RESULTS: Patients receiving either dose of baricitinib had a 9.9% decrease in itch NRS scores from baseline to Day 2 vs 1.5% decrease for placebo (significant between-group least squares mean [LSM] difference: 8.3; 95% CI -12.66 to -3.89; P = .0002). Baricitinib 2 mg reduced nighttime awakenings due to itch (ADSS item 2) at day 2 by 25.2% vs 3.9% in the placebo group (between-group LSM difference: -21.4, P = .0025). Baricitinib 2 mg continued to demonstrate a statistically significant difference from placebo in sleep symptoms at day 7 (LSM difference -23.9; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib 2-mg provided relief from itching and sleep disturbance in patients with AD, beginning the day after taking first dose.Clinical trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov: BREEZE-AD5 (NCT03435081).

Improvement in sleep and itch and enhanced quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from a phase 3 trial of baricitinib therapy.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib previously demonstrated improvements in itch and sleep disturbance versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVES: Examine if itch and sleep improvements are associated with better quality of life (QoL) and productivity in patients with AD. METHODS: Data were drawn from BREEZE-AD5 (NCT03435081). Itch and sleep improvement at Week 16 were defined using ≥4-point improvements in the Itch Numeric Rating Scale and ≥1.5 decreases in the number of nighttime awakenings since baseline, respectively. Patients with and without improvements were compared on Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-AD scores. Changes from baseline were analyzed using ANCOVA with last observation carried forward. Proportions were analyzed using logistic regression with non-responder imputation. RESULTS: Greater proportions of patients with versus without itch improvement indicated no impact of AD on QoL (37.7 vs. 1.8%). Patients with itch improvement had greater decreases in work time impaired (-29.3 vs. -5.6%). More patients with versus without sleep improvement reported no effect of AD on QoL (25.5 vs. 1.1%); patients with better sleep experienced larger reductions in work time spent impaired (-33.3 vs. -6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AD who experienced itch and sleep improvement had significantly better QoL and productivity.

Baricitinib Rapidly Improves Skin Pain Resulting in Improved Quality of Life for Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: Analyses from BREEZE-AD1, 2, and 7.

INTRODUCTION: Skin pain (described as discomfort or soreness) is increasingly recognized as a symptom of atopic dermatitis which impacts patient quality of life. This analysis examined the effect of baricitinib on skin pain in atopic dermatitis in three phase 3 studies (BREEZE-AD1, -AD2, and -AD7). METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1:1:1 to receive once-daily placebo, baricitinib 1 mg, 2 mg, or 4 mg in BREEZE-AD1 (N = 624) and -AD2 (N = 615) and 1:1:1 to receive once-daily placebo, baricitinib 2 mg, or 4 mg, with topical corticosteroids, in BREEZE-AD7 (N = 329) for 16 weeks. Patients recorded their skin pain severity using the Skin Pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) via an electronic daily diary. Data were analyzed by study as least squares mean change from baseline in daily scores for the randomly assigned patients using mixed model repeated measures analysis. Analysis of Skin Pain NRS response was done using logistic regression using non-responder imputation. RESULTS: Baricitinib produced significant percentage change from baseline compared with placebo in patient-reported skin pain severity by day 2 in BREEZE-AD1 (baricitinib 4 mg - 11.9%, p < 0.001; baricitinib 2 mg - 6.4%, p = 0.016; baricitinib 1 mg - 6.2%, p = 0.016), -AD2 (baricitinib 4 mg - 12.6%, p < 0.001; baricitinib 2 mg - 5.6%, p = 0.036; baricitinib 1 mg - 6.9%, p = 0.011), and -AD7 (baricitinib 4 mg - 6.9%, p = 0.04; baricitinib 2 mg - 7.9%, p = 0.018). A greater proportion of patients treated with baricitinib reported at least a 4-point reduction in Skin Pain NRS score at week 16 (Skin Pain NRS responders) in BREEZE-AD1 (baricitinib 4 mg 25.3%, p < 0.001), -AD2 (baricitinib 4 mg 20.0%, p < 0.001; baricitinib 2 mg 19.0%, p < 0.001), and -AD7 (baricitinib 4 mg 48.8%, p < 0.001; baricitinib 2 mg 45.2%, p = 0.004) compared to placebo. A significantly higher proportion of Skin Pain NRS responders also achieved at least a 4-point improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index at week 16 when compared with Skin Pain NRS non-responders in BREEZE-AD1 (89.2%, p < 0.0001), -AD2 (92.5%, p < 0.0001), and -AD7 (88.3%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Baricitinib improved patient-reported skin pain severity as early as day 2. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIERS: BREEZE-AD1, NCT03334396; BREEZE-AD2, NCT03334422; BREEZE-AD7, NCT03733301.

Itch and Sleep Improvements with Baricitinib in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: A Post Hoc Analysis of 3 Phase 3 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Burdensome symptoms of atopic dermatitis include itch and sleep disturbance. This post hoc analysis reports the effect of baricitinib on itch and sleep disturbance during the first week of treatment in 3 phase 3 studies. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1:1:1 to once-daily placebo or baricitinib 1 mg, 2 mg, or 4 mg in the BREEZE-AD1 and -AD2 studies and 1:1:1 to once-daily placebo or baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mg in the BREEZE-AD7 study. Topical corticosteroids were only allowed in BREEZE-AD7. Patients completed the itch numerical rating scale and atopic dermatitis sleep scale (ADSS) items 1-3 using an electronic daily diary. Data were analyzed by study as least squares mean percent change from baseline in daily scores for the randomized patients. Mixed model repeated measures analysis was used to analyze change from baseline values. RESULTS: A total of 624, 615, and 329 patients were randomized in BREEZE-AD1, -AD2, and -AD7, respectively. Itch severity significantly improved with baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg versus placebo starting at day 2 (1 day after first dose) in BREEZE-AD1 and -AD7 and at day 1 in BREEZE-AD2. Patients' ability to fall asleep (ADSS item 1) significantly improved with baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg versus placebo starting at day 2 in all three studies. There were significant improvements in patients waking due to itch (ADSS item 2) with baricitinib 4 mg versus placebo starting at day 2 in all three studies. Patients' ability to return to sleep after being woken by itch (ADSS item 3) was significantly improved with baricitinib 4 mg versus placebo starting at day 2 in BREEZE-AD1 and -AD2 and at day 4 in BREEZE-AD7. CONCLUSION: Rapid onset of action, typically 1 day after taking the first dose of baricitinib, was observed consistently for the burdensome symptoms of itch and sleep disturbance. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIERS: BREEZE-AD1, NCT03334396; BREEZE-AD2, NCT03334422; BREEZE-AD7, NCT03733301.

Low rates of radiographic progression of structural joint damage over 2 years of baricitinib treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: To evaluate radiographic progression of structural joint damage over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from baricitinib clinical trials who were disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve or had an inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD-IR). Methods: Patients had completed one of three phase III studies and entered a long-term extension (LTE) study, continuing on the same baricitinib dose as at originating study completion. At 52 weeks, DMARD-naïve patients receiving methotrexate (MTX) or combination therapy (baricitinib 4 mg+MTX) were switched to baricitinib 4 mg monotherapy (±MTX per investigator opinion); MTX-IR patients receiving adalimumab were switched to baricitinib 4 mg on background MTX. At 24 weeks, csDMARD-IR patients receiving placebo were switched to baricitinib 4 mg on background csDMARD. Radiographs at baseline, year 1 and year 2 were scored using the van der Heijde modified Total Sharp Score. Linear extrapolation was used for missing data. Results: Of 2573 randomised patients, 2125 (82.6%) entered the LTE, of whom 1893 (89.1%) entered this analysis. At year 2, progression was significantly lower with initial baricitinib (monotherapy or combination therapy) versus initial MTX in DMARD-naïve patients (proportion with non-progression defined by ≤smallest detectable change (SDC): 87.3% baricitinib 4 mg+MTX; 70.6% MTX; p≤ 0.001). In MTX-IR patients, progression with initial baricitinib was significantly lower than with initial placebo and similar to initial adalimumab (≤SDC: 82.7% baricitinib 4 mg; 83.5% adalimumab; 70.6% placebo; p≤0.001). In csDMARD-IR patients, significant benefit was seen with baricitinib 4 mg (≤SDC: 87.2% vs 73.2% placebo; p≤0.01). Conclusions: Treatment with once-daily baricitinib resulted in low rates of radiographic progression for up to 2 years.

Influence of route of administration/drug formulation and other factors on adherence to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (pain related) and dyslipidemia (non-pain related).

OBJECTIVES: A comprehensive review was performed to investigate the effect of route of administration on medication adherence and persistence in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare adherence/persistence with oral medications between RA and a non-painful disease (dyslipidemia). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Comprehensive database searches were performed to identify studies investigating medication adherence and/or persistence in adults with RA receiving conventional synthetic or biologic agents. Similar searches were performed for studies of patients with dyslipidemia receiving statins. Studies had to be published after 1998 in English and involve ≥6 months' follow up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence and persistence were compared between the different routes of drug administration in RA, and between the two diseases for oral medications. RESULTS: A total of 35 and 28 papers underwent data extraction for RA and dyslipidemia, respectively. Within the constraints of the analysis, adherence and persistence rates appeared broadly similar for the different routes of drug administration in RA. Adherence to oral medications was also broadly similar across the two diseases, but persistence was lower in dyslipidemia. Poor adherence has clinical consequences in both diseases: greater disease activity and risk of flare in RA, and increased serum cholesterol levels and risk of heart and cerebrovascular disease in dyslipidemia. Over 1-3 years, poor adherence to biologic RA medications led to increased resource use and medical costs but lower total direct costs due to reduced biologic drug costs. Conversely, poor adherence to dyslipidemia medications resulted in increased total direct costs. In both diseases, adherence improved with patient education/support. CONCLUSIONS: The route of drug administration and the symptomatic (pain) nature of the disease do not appear to be dominant factors for drug adherence or persistence in RA. LIMITATION: The wide range of adherence and persistence values and definitions across studies made comparisons between drug formulations and diseases difficult.

Olanzapine long-acting injection: a review of first experiences of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) for the treatment of schizophrenia was associated with a cluster of symptoms termed post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS) in a small percentage (~2%) of patients during clinical trials. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the rate and clinical characteristics of PDSS since olanzapine LAI entered commercial use. METHODS: Cases of PDSS were identified from all reported adverse events during worldwide commercial use of olanzapine LAI through to 1 March 2014. Data sources included two ongoing post-marketing safety studies as well as spontaneously reported adverse events from routine clinical practice over a 5-year period (1 March 2009 to 1 March 2014). RESULTS: A total of 338 PDSS events were identified. Of these, 91% occurred within 1 hour of injection, and 52% of these occurred within 15 minutes. None of the PDSS events in this analysis were fatal, and most resolved within 72 hours. The most common symptoms (occurring in >30% of cases) were sedation (61%), confusion (56%), dysarthria (54%), somnolence (46%), dizziness (45%) and disorientation (35%). Overall, PDSS occurred with approximately 0.07% of injections and in 0.46-1.03% of patients (reporting and incidence rates from spontaneous reports and post-marketing safety studies, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The PDSS events reported during routine clinical use of olanzapine LAI are generally similar in incidence and presentation to those reported in clinical trials. Caution should be applied when interpreting spontaneously reported rates of adverse events, however, due to potential under-reporting. Implemented risk-minimisation activities may contribute substantially to the identification and appropriate management of patients with PDSS in clinical practice.

Underdiagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adult patients: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To raise awareness of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as an underdiagnosed, undertreated, often comorbid, and debilitating condition in adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched using combinations of keywords, including ADHD, adult, diagnosis, identify, prevalence, and comorbid, to find articles published between 1976 and 2013. STUDY SELECTION: In total, 99 articles were selected for inclusion on the basis of their relevance to the objective and importance to and representation of ADHD research, including international guidelines for adults with ADHD. RESULTS: In a large proportion of children with ADHD, symptoms persist into adulthood. However, although adults with ADHD often experience chaotic lifestyles, with impaired educational and vocational achievement and higher risks of substance abuse and imprisonment, many remain undiagnosed and/or untreated. ADHD is usually accompanied by other psychiatric comorbidities (such as major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and alcohol abuse). Indeed, adults with ADHD are more likely to present to a psychiatric clinic for treatment of their comorbid disorders than for ADHD, and their ADHD symptoms are often mistaken for those of their comorbidities. Untreated ADHD in adults with psychiatric comorbidities leads to poor clinical and functional outcomes for the patient even if comorbidities are treated. Effective treatment of adults' ADHD improves symptoms, emotional lability, and patient functioning, often leading to favorable outcomes (eg, safer driving, reduced criminality). A few medications have now been approved for use in adults with ADHD, while a multimodal approach involving psychotherapy has also shown promising results. Conclusions General psychiatrists should familiarize themselves with the symptoms of ADHD in adults in order to diagnose and manage ADHD and comorbidities appropriately in these patients.

Switching to olanzapine long-acting injection from either oral olanzapine or any other antipsychotic: comparative post hoc analyses.

BACKGROUND: A considerable proportion of patients suffering from schizophrenia show suboptimal responses to oral antipsychotics due to inadequate adherence. Hence, they are likely to benefit from switching to a long-acting injectable formulation. These post hoc analyses assessed the clinical effects of switching to olanzapine long-acting injection (OLAI) from either oral olanzapine (OLZ) or other antipsychotics (non-OLZ). METHODS: Post hoc analyses were done based on two randomized studies (one short-term, one long-term) conducted in patients suffering from schizophrenia and treated with OLAI. The short-term study was an 8-week placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in acute patients, and the long-term study was a 2-year, oral olanzapine-controlled, open-label, follow-up of stabilized outpatients. RESULTS: These analyses used data from 62 OLAI-treated patients (12 switched from OLZ, 50 from non-OLZ) from the short-term study and 190 OLAI-treated patients (56 switched from OLZ, 134 from non-OLZ) from the long-term study. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses of time to all-cause discontinuation of OLAI treatment did not differ significantly between OLZ and non-OLZ patients in the short-term study (P=0.209) or long-term study (P=0.448). Similarly, the proportions of OLZ and non-OLZ patients that discontinued OLAI were not statistically different in the short-term (16.7% versus 36.0%, respectively; P=0.198) or long-term (57.1% versus 47.8% respectively; P=0.238) studies. In the short-term study, no significant differences were detected between the patient groups in mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (-13.4 OLZ versus -20.8 non-OLZ; P=0.166). In the long-term study, mean change in PANSS total score (3.9 OLZ versus -3.6 non-OLZ; P=0.008) was significantly different between the non-OLZ and OLZ groups. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar in OLZ and non-OLZ groups per study. CONCLUSION: These post hoc analyses suggest that no significant differences in clinical effectiveness were seen after switching from non-OLZ or OLZ to OLAI. However, these findings should be interpreted with care, due to small sample sizes and differences in patients' clinical profiles.

Early response and remission as predictors of a good outcome of a major depressive episode at 12-month follow-up: a prospective, longitudinal, observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) should be not only achieving remission in a particular episode but also avoiding relapses and attaining long-term recovery. The current study was designed to evaluate whether response and remission achieved within the first 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment are associated with a 12-month good outcome (achieving remission by 6 months and remaining in remission until the end of follow-up). METHOD: This prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study included adult outpatients who had a DSM-IV diagnosis of MDD, baseline scores ≥ 15 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scores ≥ 4, and a minimum remission period of 12 weeks between the index episode and the immediately prior episode (or who were in their first MDD episode). The primary efficacy measure was early response (a 50% decrease from baseline in HDRS(17) score by week 6). The secondary efficacy measure was early remission (HDRS(17) score ≤ 7 by week 6). RESULTS: Among the total of 930 patients included from December 2006 to June 2007, 38.2% showed early response, and 20.5% showed early remission. Of the early responders, 76.1% had a 12-month good outcome as compared to 81.1% of early remitters. Logistic regression showed that factors associated with a good outcome included early response (odds ratio [OR] = 4.14), being employed, and the absence of physical comorbidities. Early remission was also strongly associated with a good outcome (OR = 4.72). CONCLUSIONS: Either response or remission achieved by week 6 is the strongest prognostic factor for the 12-month good outcome of an episode of MDD.

Raloxifene: mechanism of action, effects on bone tissue, and applicability in clinical traumatology practice.

Raloxifene, a member of the class of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM), reproduces the beneficial effects of estrogens on the skeletal systems, without the negative effects estrogens on breast and endometrium. This is a review article summarizing its mechanism, effects on bone and its applicability in traumatology clinical practice. In postmenopausal osteoporosis, this drug has been proven to decrease accelerated bone turnover, increase bone mineral density (BMD), and to structurally recover bone, decreasing the risk of vertebral fractures and the risk of non-vertebral fractures in patients with previous, severe vertebral fractures. Moreover, raloxifene appears to lower the risk of invasive breast cancer. Raloxifene would be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.We can therefore conclude that raloxifene would be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, while reducing the risk of breast cancer when used at the indicated dose of 60 mg/day and with a low incidence of side effects.

Pemetrexed in first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

Pemetrexed is an antitumor agent traditionally used as monotherapy for the second-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as well as in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of chemonaïve patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Recently, pemetrexed has been approved in combination with cisplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC other than predominantly squamous cell histology. Studies that support the development of this indication are detailed in this review. We performed a PubMed/Medline database search to identify relevant literature from 1998 until August 2008. Bibliographies from identified references were searched, as well as were abstracts from the most relevant congresses in lung cancer area (American Society of Clinical Oncology Congress, World Conferences of Lung Cancer). We detailed pemetrexed studies in the first-line setting of NSCLC treatment, in monotherapy, in combination with platinum and also, with other agents. Data regarding efficacy differences related to different histologic types were also analyzed.

Risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures in postmenopausal women between 50 and 65 years of age in a primary care setting in Spain: a questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis (OP) is a major, highly prevalent health problem and osteoporosis-related fractures account for high morbidity and mortality. Therefore, prevention and early detection of osteoporosis should strive to substantially reduce this risk of fracture. OBJECTIVE: The present observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study sought to assess the prevalence of risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures in a large sample of postmenopausal women aged 50 to 65 years attending Primary Care facilities in Spain. METHODS: We recruited 4,960 women, at 96 Primary Care centers. Demographic and anthropometrical data, as well as information regarding risk factors for OP were collected using a questionnaire. RESULTS: the prevalence rates for the major osteoporosis risk factors in our population were: low calcium intake, 43%; benzodiazepine use, 35.1%, and height loss, 30.1%. Other relatively prevalent factors include: having suffered at least one fall during the preceding year; positive family history of falls (particularly on the mother's side), smoking, kyphosis, presence of any disease affecting bone metabolism, personal history of falls, and inability to rise from a chair without using one's arms. The least frequent factors were weight loss of greater than 10% over the preceding 10 years and problems in sensory perception that affect patient's ability to walk. CONCLUSIONS: The main risk factors for osteoporosis in women 50-65 years of age are low calcium intake, use of benzodiazepines, and observed loss of height. Our results may help physicians to identify groups at risk for OP and fractures at early stages and consequently, optimize prevention and early diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Olanzapine orally disintegrating tablet: a review of efficacy and compliance.

Medication nonadherence, especially in psychiatric disorders, has been associated with treatment failure and other negative outcomes. Orally disintegrating formulations have been developed as an alternative to improve medication adherence. This report reviews the properties, efficacy, and safety profile of olanzapine as an orally disintegrating tablet, and explores their association with medication compliance compared with standard oral formulation. Medical literature, published on orally disintegrating formulation of olanzapine identified using Pubmed and EMBASE, was used. Additional references were identified from the reference lists of published articles. Bibliographical information, including contributory unpublished data, was also requested from the company developing the drug. Studies evaluating the biostability, biodisposability, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of orally disintegrating olanzapine as treatment of patients with psychiatric disorders were reviewed. Measurement tools included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S), Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, and Nursing Assessment of Medication Acceptance (NAMA). Orally disintegrating olanzapine, an effective atypical antipsychotic with an acceptable safety profile, can facilitate the burden of treatment on patients and caregivers due to its ease of administration. This is especially important in diseases such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, which can be chronic and require long-term treatment.