Efficacy of Galcanezumab for Migraine Prevention in Patients With a Medical History of Anxiety and/or Depression: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled REGAIN, and Pooled EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 Studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of galcanezumab for the prevention of migraine in patients with and without comorbid anxiety and/or depression. BACKGROUND: Patients with migraine have a higher risk of anxiety and/or depression. Given the high prevalence of psychiatric symptoms and their potential negative prognostic impact, determining the efficacy of migraine treatments in patients with these comorbidities is important. METHODS: The results of 2 phase 3 episodic migraine studies of patients with 4-14 migraine headache days (MHD) per month were pooled. A third chronic migraine study, which was evaluated separately, enrolled patients with ≥15 headache days per month, of which ≥8 had migraine-like features. Patients in all 3 studies were randomized 2:1:1 to placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, or galcanezumab 240 mg. The efficacy of galcanezumab on migraine was measured in subgroups of patients with anxiety and/or depression (current or past) and patients without. A repeated measures model was used to compare treatment groups within each subgroup and to test for consistency of treatment effect across the anxiety/depression subgroups (subgroup-by-treatment interaction) during the double-blind treatment phases. RESULTS: Among 1773 intent-to-treat patients with episodic migraine, both doses of galcanezumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements relative to placebo in overall number of MHD for the subgroups of patients with anxiety and/or depression (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -2.07 [-2.81, -1.33] for galcanezumab 120 mg [P < .001], -1.91 [-2.78, -1.04] for 240 mg [P < .001]) and without anxiety and/or depression (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -1.92 [-2.36, -1.47] for 120 mg [P < .001], -1.77 [-2.20, -1.33] for 240 mg [P < .001]), as was observed for the secondary outcomes of MHD with acute medication use and functional impairment. Among 1113 intent-to-treat patients with chronic migraine, those with anxiety and/or depression had significant reductions in overall MHD frequency with the 240-mg dose (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -1.92 [-3.52, -0.33]; P = .018), whereas significant reductions were observed at both the 120-mg (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -2.29 [-3.26, -1.31]; P < .001) and 240-mg (-1.85 [-2.83, -0.87]; P < .001) doses in patients without anxiety and/or depressions. Significant reductions (P < .01) in MHD with acute medication use were observed at both doses within both anxiety/depression subgroups and for overall functional impairment for patients without anxiety and/or depression, though neither dose significantly reduced overall functional impairment beyond placebo in the subgroup with anxiety and/or depression. In the episodic and chronic migraine studies, the subgroup-by-treatment interaction was not statistically significant for MHD, MHD with acute medication use, or functional impairment (chronic study only), suggesting a lack of evidence of differential effect between subgroups. Furthermore, differences between subgroups in the mean change differences from placebo, as well as overlapping 95% confidence intervals for the subgroups, indicated lack of a clinical or statistical difference between subgroups for these outcome variables. There was a significantly higher percentage of patients with episodic migraine attaining ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reductions, and a higher percentage of patients with chronic migraine attaining ≥50% and ≥75% reductions from baseline with galcanezumab compared with placebo, regardless of medical history of anxiety and/or depression. CONCLUSIONS: A medical history of anxiety and/or depression does not seem to interfere with response to galcanezumab among patients with episodic migraine, and both doses of galcanezumab appear efficacious for these individuals regardless of this psychiatric history. Among patients with chronic migraine and comorbid anxiety and/or depression, the 240-mg dose, but not the 120-mg dose, significantly decreased overall MHD, but neither dose resulted in significantly greater functional improvement. Patients with migraine and comorbid anxiety and/or depression often require additional interventions, and this may be more important in chronic migraine.

A phase 1 study of the Janus kinase 2 (JAK2)V617F inhibitor, gandotinib (LY2784544), in patients with primary myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia.

Mutations in Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) are implicated in the pathogenesis of Philadelphia-chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms, including primary myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia. Gandotinib (LY2784544), a potent inhibitor of JAK2 activity, shows increased potency for the JAK2V617F mutation. The study had a standard 3+3 dose-escalation design to define the maximum-tolerated dose. Primary objectives were to determine safety, tolerability, and recommended oral daily dose of gandotinib for patients with JAK2V617F-positive myelofibrosis, essential thrombocythemia, or polycythemia vera. Secondary objectives included estimating pharmacokinetic parameters and documenting evidence of efficacy by measuring clinical improvement. Thirty-eight patients were enrolled and treated (31 myelofibrosis, 6 polycythemia vera, 1 essential thrombocythemia). The maximum-tolerated dose of gandotinib was 120mg daily, based on dose-limiting toxicities of blood creatinine increase or hyperuricemia at higher doses. Maximum plasma concentration was reached 4h after single and multiple doses, and mean half-life on day 1 was approximately 6h. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhea (55.3%) and nausea (42.1%), a majority of which were of grade 1 severity. Best response of clinical improvement was achieved by 29% of myelofibrosis patients. A ≥50% palpable spleen length reduction was observed at any time during therapy in 20/32 evaluable patients. Additionally, ≥50% reduction in the Total Symptom Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Score was seen in 11/21 (52%) and 6/14 patients (43%) receiving ≥120mg at 12 and 24 weeks respectively. Gandotinib demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, and findings at the maximum-tolerated dose of 120mg supported further clinical testing. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01134120.

Quality of life in children and adolescents with bipolar I depression treated with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination.

BACKGROUND: We examined the efficacy of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) in improving health-related quality of life (QoL) in the treatment of bipolar depression in children and adolescents. METHODS: Patients aged 10-17 years with bipolar I disorder, depressed episode, baseline children's depression rating scale-revised (CDRS-R) total score ≥40, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≤15, and YMRS-item 1 ≤ 2 were randomized to OFC (6/25-12/50 mg/day olanzapine/fluoxetine; n = 170) or placebo (n = 85) for up to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Patients and parents completed the revised KINDL questionnaire for measuring health-related QoL in children and adolescents (KINDL-R) at baseline and endpoint. The mean change in CDRS-R total and item scores were used to compare improvement in symptomatology in patients taking OFC and placebo. Tests were 2-sided using a Type I error cutoff of 0.05, and no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. RESULTS: Baseline QoL as measured by the KINDL-R was substantially impaired relative to published norms for a healthy school-based sample. OFC-treated patients demonstrated an improvement over placebo at endpoint with respect to mean change from baseline in the patient-rated KINDL-R Self-esteem subscale score (p = 0.028), and in the parent KINDL-R ratings of emotional well-being (p = 0.020), Self-esteem (p = 0.030), and Family (p = 0.006). At endpoint, OFC-treated patients still had a lower QoL compared to the normative population. OFC showed significant improvement (p ≤ 0.05) versus placebo on the CDRS-R total score and on 7 of the 17 CDRS-R items. CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 10-17 years with an acute episode of bipolar depression and their parents reported greater improvements (parents noticed improvements in more areas than did their offspring) on some aspects of QoL when treated with OFC compared with placebo. However, after 8 weeks of treatment, KINDL-R endpoint scores remained lower than those of the, presumably healthy, control population. Clinical trial registration information A Study for Assessing Treatment of Patients Ages 10-17 with Bipolar Depression; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00844857.

Efficacy of Continuous Dosing of Tadalafil Once Daily vs Tadalafil On Demand in Clinical Subgroups of Men With Erectile Dysfunction: A Descriptive Comparison Using the Integrated Tadalafil Databases.

INTRODUCTION: Various factors play a role in the development of erectile dysfunction (ED). AIM: To provide a descriptive comparison of erectile function response for tadalafil on-demand (PRN) and once-daily (OAD) dosing regimens in patients with common comorbid conditions, treatments, or risk factors that can be considered when treating ED. METHODS: In total, 17 PRN and 4 OAD placebo-controlled studies were included in the integrated database in these pooled analyses. Data were analyzed from patients treated with placebo, tadalafil 10 mg (low dose), and 20 mg (high dose) for the PRN studies and placebo, tadalafil 2.5 mg (low dose), and 5 mg (high dose) for the OAD studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effects of tadalafil were measured using the International Index of Erectile Function administered from baseline to week 12. A descriptive comparison of the efficacy of tadalafil PRN vs OAD was examined in the clinical populations. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of 4,354 men were comparable between the PRN and OAD groups, with differences seen only in the variables of race, body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m(2), and alcohol use. Tadalafil was efficacious at improving erectile function for all clinical populations, except for the low-dose OAD group, which demonstrated a weaker effect vs placebo than the high-dose OAD group, and the low- and high-dose PRN groups vs placebo for patients with BMI of at least 30 kg/m(2) for patients without a cardiovascular disorder, smokers, patients with ED duration shorter than 1 year, and patients without previous phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use. Tadalafil was efficacious for patients with or without diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and alcohol use at baseline. CONCLUSION: Tadalafil OAD and PRN regimens showed efficacy in patients with ED. No clinical populations of patients with ED seemed to benefit overwhelmingly from one dose regimen over the other.

Florbetapir F18 PET Amyloid Neuroimaging and Characteristics in Patients With Mild and Moderate Alzheimer Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) is challenging, with a 70.9%-87.3% sensitivity and 44.3%-70.8% specificity, compared with autopsy diagnosis. Florbetapir F18 positron emission tomography (FBP-PET) estimates beta-amyloid plaque density antemortem. METHODS: Of 2052 patients (≥55 years old) clinically diagnosed with mild or moderate AD dementia from 2 solanezumab clinical trials, 390 opted to participate in a FBP-PET study addendum. We analyzed baseline prerandomization characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 22.4% had negative FBP-PET scans, whereas 72.5% of mild and 86.9% of moderate AD patients had positive results. No baseline clinical variable reliably differentiated negative from positive FBP-PET scan groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm the challenges of correctly diagnosing AD without using biomarkers. FBP-PET can aid AD dementia differential diagnosis by detecting amyloid pathology antemortem, even when the diagnosis of AD is made by expert clinicians.

Efficacy and Safety Extrapolation Analyses for Atomoxetine in Young Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: This extrapolation analysis qualitatively compared the efficacy and safety profile of atomoxetine from Lilly clinical trial data in 6-7-year-old patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with that of published literature in 4-5-year-old patients with ADHD (two open-label [4-5-year-old patients] and one placebo-controlled study [5-year-old patients]). METHODS: The main efficacy analyses included placebo-controlled Lilly data and the placebo-controlled external study (5-year-old patients) data. The primary efficacy variables used in these studies were the ADHD Rating Scale-IV Parent Version, Investigator Administered (ADHD-RS-IV-Parent:Inv) total score, or the Swanson, Nolan and Pelham (SNAP-IV) scale score. Safety analyses included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital signs. Descriptive statistics (means, percentages) are presented. RESULTS: Acute atomoxetine treatment improved core ADHD symptoms in both 6-7-year-old patients (n=565) and 5-year-old patients (n=37) (treatment effect: -10.16 and -7.42). In an analysis of placebo-controlled groups, the mean duration of exposure to atomoxetine was ∼ 7 weeks for 6-7-year-old patients and 9 weeks for 5-year-old patients. Decreased appetite was the most common TEAE in atomoxetine-treated patients. The TEAEs observed at a higher rate in 5-year-old versus 6-7-year-old patients were irritability (36.8% vs. 3.6%) and other mood-related events (6.9% each vs. <3.0%). Blood pressure and pulse increased in both 4-5-year-old patients and 6-7-year-old patients, whereas a weight increase was seen only in the 6-7-year-old patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by the small sample size of the external studies, these analyses suggest that in 5-year-old patients with ADHD, atomoxetine may improve ADHD symptoms, but possibly to a lesser extent than in older children, with some adverse events occurring at a higher rate in 5-year-old patients.

Glycemic control after 6 days of insulin pump reservoir use in type 1 diabetes: results of double-blind and open-label cross-over trials of insulin lispro and insulin aspart.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to assess mean self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), on day 6 of 6 days of continuous reservoir wear (6D), with insulin lispro (Lis) or insulin aspart (Asp). METHODS: Two 24-week, randomized trials were conducted in subjects with type 1 diabetes treated by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for ≥6 months, with a mean total daily insulin dose capable of supporting 6 days of in-reservoir use. Study 1 had an open-label, six-sequence, three-treatment, three-period, cross-over design. Study 2 had a double-blind, two-sequence, two-treatment, two-period, cross-over design. The primary efficacy measure was the mean of Day 6, seven-point SMBG profiles for insulin lispro 6D (Lis6D) and insulin aspart 6D (Asp6D) treatment periods. Safety measures were also assessed. RESULTS: Lis did not achieve noninferiority (SMBG; margin = 0.6 mmol/L [10.8 mg/dL]) to Asp on Day 6 of reservoir wear in either Study (least-squares mean difference: Study 1 = 0.48 mmol/L [8.64 mg/dL]; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.20, 0.76], Study 2 = 0.36 mmol/L [6.49 mg/dL]; 95% CI [0.06, 0.66]). Noninferiority was demonstrated for overall daily mean of SMBG values over days 1 to 6 of reservoir use during each treatment period. In the Lis treatment period, subjects reported a lower documented and total hypoglycemia rate per 30 days and a higher rate of non-explained hyperglycemia than in the Asp treatment period. CONCLUSION: While the mean blood glucose on Day 6 of Lis6D did not meet non-inferiority, the overall daily mean blood glucose was not different, with a decreased rate of hypoglycemia with Lis.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of edivoxetine as an adjunctive treatment for patients with major depressive disorder who are partial responders to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment.

BACKGROUND: This phase 2 study examined the efficacy and tolerability of edivoxetine, a highly selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, as an adjunctive treatment for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have a partial response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment. METHODS: Study design consisted of double-blind, 10-week therapy of adjunctive edivoxetine (6-18 mg once daily) or adjunctive placebo with SSRI. Inclusion/entry criteria included partial response to current SSRI by investigator opinion and a GRID 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) total score ≥16. The primary efficacy measure was the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and vital signs. RESULTS: For the primary evaluable population (n=63 for adjunctive edivoxetine and n=68 for adjunctive placebo), the treatment groups did not differ significantly on the primary outcome of change from baseline to week 8 in the MADRS total score; the effect size of edivoxetine treatment was 0.26. Significant treatment differences, favoring adjunctive edivoxetine (p≤.05), were shown for improvements in role functioning and the functional impact of fatigue. For the adjunctive edivoxetine randomized group (N=111), the most frequent TEAEs were hyperhidrosis (7.2%), nausea (7.2%), erectile dysfunction (6.3%) and testicular pain (6.3%). Hemodynamic changes were observed in blood pressure and pulse rate between treatment groups. LIMITATIONS: Study was underpowered for an alpha 2-sided 0.05 significance level for the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with MDD who had a partial response to SSRIs, adjunctive edivoxetine treatment was not statistically superior to adjunctive placebo on the primary outcome measure. However, pending further study, improved functioning and remission rate suggest a potential role for edivoxetine for patients with depression.

A randomized trial of edivoxetine in pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of edivoxetine (LY2216684), a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, in pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: A fixed-dose, randomized, double-blind, 8 week study was conducted in patients 6-17 years of age, who were randomized by two strata: 1) Patients with prior stimulant use randomized to placebo, edivoxetine 0.1 mg/kg/day, 0.2 mg/kg/day, or 0.3 mg/kg/day arms in a 1:1:1:1 ratio; 2) Stimulant-naïve patients randomized to placebo, edivoxetine 0.1mg/kg/day, 0.2 mg/kg/day, 0.3 mg/kg/day, or osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS MPH) (18-54 mg/day based on body weight) arms in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio. The primary efficacy measure was baseline-to-week 8 change of ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) total score for edivoxetine 0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day. RESULTS: A total of 340 patients were randomized to placebo (n=78); edivoxetine 0.1 mg/kg/day (n=76), 0.2 mg/kg/day (n=75), or 0.3 mg/kg/day (n=75); or OROS MPH (n=36). In the stimulant-naïve stratum, the positive control, OROS MPH, was significantly superior to placebo in mean ADHD-RS total score change at end-point (-19.46, p=0.015). The edivoxetine 0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day arms had statistically significantly greater improvement than the placebo arm in mean ADHD-RS total score change at end-point (placebo -10.35; edivoxetine 0.2 mg/kg/day -16.09, p<0.010; edivoxetine 0.3 mg/kg/day -16.39, p<0.010) and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score (placebo 3.05; edivoxetine 0.1 mg/kg/day 3.01, p=0.860; edivoxetine 0.2 mg/kg/day 2.54, p=0.013; edivoxetine 0.3 mg/kg/day 2.53, p=0.013). In the overall efficacy-analyses data set (n=270), the effect size estimates for edivoxetine doses 0.1 mg/kg/day, 0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day at the week 8 time point were 0.17, 0.51, and 0.54, respectively (for the stimulant-naïve stratum, the effect size estimate for OROS MPH was 0.69). Compared with placebo, edivoxetine treatment was associated with statistically significant increases in blood pressure and pulse (p<0.050), and a smaller increase or slight decrease in weight. CONCLUSIONS: Edivoxetine at doses of 0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day demonstrated efficacy in ADHD treatment, despite the presence of a sizeable placebo response. No unexpected adverse events were identified. Clinical Trial Registry identifier: NCT00922636.

Burden of illness and treatment patterns for patients with fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to describe burden of illness and treatment patterns, and to examine the patient, physician, and care factors associated with the treatment choices of individuals receiving new prescriptions for fibromyalgia (FM). DESIGN: This is a baseline assessment of the Real-World Examination of Fibromyalgia: Longitudinal Evaluation of Costs and Treatments (REFLECTIONS), a prospective observational study. Baseline data (including a physician survey, a patient visit form, and computer-assisted telephone interviews) were collected from July 2008 through May 2010 in 58 care settings in the United States, including Puerto Rico. RESULTS: Patients (N = 1,700) were mostly female (94.6%) and white (82.9%). Mean age was 50.4 years and mean duration of illness was 5.6 years. Mean Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score was 54.4 (range 0-80), and Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity level was 5.5 (range 0-10). Patients reported high annual health care use and numerous work limitations related to FM. Patients were taking 182 unique types of medications prescribed for FM, including duloxetine (26.8%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (26.6%), pregabalin (24.5%), opioids (24.2%), tramadol (15.3%), benzodiazepines (15.2%), cyclobenzaprine (12.9%), milnacipran (8.9%), and others. Most patients took more than one medication concurrently (77.8%). Type of current medications used was most strongly associated with medication history and physician specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Burden of illness was high for patients with FM, and treatment patterns were highly variable. Importantly, the treatments with the most evidence to support their use were not always the most frequently chosen.

Atomoxetine treatment outcomes in adolescents and young adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: results from a post hoc, pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) continue to experience this disorder as adults, which may, in part, be due to the discontinuity of health care that often occurs during the transition period between late adolescence and young adulthood. Although atomoxetine is reported to be efficacious in both adolescents and young adults, no longitudinal studies have been designed to assess directly the effects of atomoxetine treatment during this transition period. As a first step, we present the results of a post hoc, pooled analysis that compared the efficacy and safety profile of atomoxetine in these 2 patient populations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety profile of atomoxetine treatment in adolescents and young adults with ADHD. METHODS: A post hoc, pooled analysis was conducted by combining data from 6 double-blind trials (6-9 weeks in duration) that studied adolescents (12-17 years of age; atomoxetine, n = 154; placebo, n = 88; mean final dose = 1.38 mg/kg) and 3 trials (10 weeks in duration) that studied young adults (18-30 years of age; atomoxetine, n = 117; placebo, n = 125; mean final dose = 1.21 mg/kg). Efficacy measures used in these analyses were ADHD Rating Scale (ADHDRS) for adolescents, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) for young adults, and Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity (CGI-ADHD-S) for both age groups. Treatment response was defined as ≥30% reduction from baseline in total ADHD symptom score. RESULTS: In adolescents (mean age, 13.4 years), atomoxetine improved ADHD significantly compared with placebo (ADHDRS total score change, -12.9 vs -7.5; P < 0.001). In young adults (mean age, 24.7 years), atomoxetine improved ADHD significantly (CAARS total score change, -13.6 vs -7.7; P < 0.001; CGI-ADHD-S change, -1.1 vs -0.6; P < 0.001). No significant treatment-by-age subgroup interaction was observed. Tolerability was similar for both age subgroups, except for treatment-emergent nausea, which occurred significantly more frequently with atomoxetine than with placebo in young adults (13.7% vs 4.8%, respectively; P = 0.024); in adolescents no statistically significant differences were observed in frequency of nausea between atomoxetine and placebo treatment (4.5% vs 10.2%, respectively; P = 0.108). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this post hoc, pooled analysis suggest that acute treatment with atomoxetine was efficacious in both adolescent and young adult patients with ADHD. The safety profile findings from this study were consistent with the previously reported atomoxetine safety and tolerability profiles, suggesting that it may be continued during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood.

Correlates of alcohol use in adults with ADHD and comorbid alcohol use disorders: exploratory analysis of a placebo-controlled trial of atomoxetine.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorder are often comorbid in adults. The effects of ADHD treatment on comorbid alcohol use disorder have not been extensively studied. OBJECTIVE: To assess correlates of ADHD and alcohol use outcomes in ADHD with comorbid alcohol use disorders, via a post-hoc exploratory subgroup analysis of a previously conducted, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of recently abstinent adults. METHODS: Adults who had ADHD and alcohol use disorders and were abstinent for 4-30 days were randomized to daily atomoxetine 25-100 mg (mean final dose = 89.9 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks. Changes in ADHD symptoms from baseline to endpoint were assessed using the ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) total score, alcohol use by the timeline followback method, and alcohol cravings by the Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale. RESULTS: Of 147 subjects receiving atomoxetine (n = 72) or placebo (n = 75) in the primary study, 80 (54%) completed 12 weeks (n = 32 atomoxetine; n = 48 placebo). Improvements in ADHD symptoms on the AISRS correlated significantly with decreases in alcohol cravings (Pearson's r = 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.11-0.43; p = 0.002), and the correlation was most notable with atomoxetine (r = 0.29; CI [0.04 - 0.51]; p = 0.023) rather than with placebo (r = 0.24; CI [0.00-0.46]; p = 0.055). On-treatment drinking levels correlated with AISRS scores (r = 0.12; CI [0.05 -0.19]; p = 0.001). Relapse to alcohol abuse significantly correlated with worse ADHD symptoms on 15 of 18 items of the AISRS in the placebo group (p < 0.05 for each). CONCLUSIONS: No baseline predictor (other than degree of sobriety) of alcohol use or ADHD outcomes emerged. ADHD symptom improvements correlated significantly with reductions in alcohol cravings, and relapse to alcohol abuse correlated significantly with worsening of most ADHD symptoms in the placebo group, but not in the atomoxetine group. This post-hoc subgroup analysis is of a hypothesis-generating nature, and the generalizability of the findings may be limited by exclusion of adults with common ADHD comorbidities from the base study. Further, prospective clinical trials in larger and more heterogeneous patient populations are warranted to confirm or reject these preliminary associations. TRIAL REGISTRATION (BASE STUDY): ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00190957.

A randomized, double-blind study comparing LY2216684 and placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

The efficacy, tolerability, and safety of LY2216684, a highly selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, were studied in adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This randomized, double-blind study compared flexible-dose LY2216684 6-18 mg once daily (N = 250) with placebo (N = 245) for 10 weeks acute therapy followed by 1 year LY2216684 treatment (results not reported here). Primary inclusion criteria consisted of GRID 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score ≥18 and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity score ≥4. The primary efficacy measure was the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Response was defined as a ≥50% reduction in MADRS score and remission as MADRS total score ≤10. Global functioning was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). LY2216684-treated patients showed significant improvement from baseline on the MADRS total score compared with placebo-treated patients (-13.3 vs. -9.8, p < .001), and they had a significantly higher probability of achieving response (49.5%) and remission (29.7%) compared with placebo-treated patients (29.3% and 18.8%, respectively). For the SDS global functional impairment score, LY2216684 treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement compared with placebo treatment (p < .001). More LY2216684-treated than placebo-treated patients discontinued from the study because of an adverse event or death (9.6% vs. 1.6%, p ≤ .001). LY2216684 was associated with significant increases (p < .01) from baseline in systolic (3 mm Hg) and diastolic (4 mm Hg) blood pressure and pulse (10 bpm) compared with placebo. LY2216684 6-18 mg demonstrated significant efficacy and was tolerated in the treatment of MDD.

Efficacy of Duloxetine in Patients with Chronic Pain Conditions.

The primary objective of this study is to review the efficacy of duloxetine in treating chronic pain using the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommendations for clinical significance across chronic pain states. These include pain intensity, patient ratings of overall improvement, physical functioning, and mental functioning. This review comprised the side-by-side analyses of 12 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in patients with chronic pain (diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, chronic pain due to osteoarthritis, and chronic low back pain). Patients received duloxetine (60 to 120 mg/day) or placebo. Average pain reduction was assessed over 3 months as the primary efficacy outcome. Other measures used were physical function and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. In 10 of the 12 studies, statistically significant greater pain reduction was observed for duloxetine- compared with placebo-treated patients. The response rates based on average pain reduction, improvement of physical function, and global impression were comparable across all 4 chronic pain states. Compared with patients on placebo, significantly more patients treated with duloxetine reported a moderately important pain reduction (≥30% reduction) in 9 of the 12 studies, a minimally important improvement in physical function in 8 of the 12 studies, and a moderately important to substantial improvement in Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating in 11 of the 12 studies. The analyses reported here show that duloxetine is efficacious in treating chronic pain as demonstrated by significant improvement in pain intensity, physical functioning, and patient ratings of overall improvement.

Effect of duloxetine in patients with fibromyalgia: tiredness subgroups.

INTRODUCTION: This study tested the hypothesis that baseline ratings of fatigue/tiredness would be negatively associated with the efficacy of duloxetine on measures of pain and functional ability in patients with fibromyalgia. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of duloxetine in fibromyalgia was performed. The fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) tiredness item score (0 to 10 scale) was used to define tiredness subgroups. Patients were stratified into 3 subgroups: mild (0 to 3), moderate (4 to 6), and severe (7 to 10) tiredness. Analysis of covariance models and logistic regressions were used to test treatment-by-tiredness subgroup interactions. RESULTS: Data from the first 3 months are included in this post hoc analysis (duloxetine N = 797, placebo N = 535). At baseline, the distribution of tiredness severity in the duloxetine and placebo groups respectively was 3.64% and 3.75% mild, 16.71% and 15.57% moderate, and 79.65% and 80.68% severe. Rates of clinically significant (≥30% and ≥50%) improvement in brief pain inventory (BPI) average pain were similar across the tiredness subgroups. Tiredness severity at baseline was not negatively associated with the effects of duloxetine on patients' reports of functional ability using the FIQ total score, FIQ measures of physical impairment, interference with work, pain, stiffness, and depression and the medical outcomes study short form-36 (SF-36). CONCLUSIONS: Studies of duloxetine in fibromyalgia have demonstrated clinically significant improvements in pain and functional ability (FIQ, SF-36). This post hoc analysis of data shows that the efficacy of duloxetine among patients with fibromyalgia does not vary as a function of baseline ratings of fatigue/tiredness.

Pain response profile of patients with fibromyalgia treated with duloxetine.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the time course for minimal clinically significant improvement in pain severity during the initial 12 weeks of treatment in patients with fibromyalgia taking duloxetine. METHODS: Four double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine were pooled. Patients received duloxetine 60 mg/d, 120 mg/d, or placebo. Clinically significant treatment response (>or=30% reduction in pain severity on the 24-hour average pain severity of the Brief Pain Inventory scale) was assessed over 12 weeks. RESULTS: At endpoint, 46.9% of duloxetine 60-mg-, 48.6% of duloxetine 120-mg-, and 32.1% of placebo-treated patients (P<0.001 for both doses) had >or=30% improvement on average pain from baseline. The probabilities of achieving >or=30% response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 among duloxetine 60-mg-treated patients were 27%, 44%, 45%, 47%, and 49%, respectively, and among duloxetine 120-mg-treated patients were 35%, 43%, 53%, 53%, and 51%, respectively (P<0.01 vs. placebo at each week, for both doses). Among patients who did not respond by Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8, the percentages of duloxetine 60-mg-treated patients who achieved a response by the endpoint of the study were 36.9%, 29.8%, 28.9%, and 26.9%, respectively. DISCUSSION: This article examines the time course for minimal clinically significant improvement in pain severity in duloxetine-treated patients with fibromyalgia. It provides information about continued treatment in patients who do not initially respond to duloxetine. This information could potentially help physicians facing clinical decisions about management of fibromyalgia with duloxetine.

A closer look at the baseline-observation-carried-forward (BOCF).

PURPOSE: The baseline-observation-carried-forward (BOCF) approach is one method to handle missing data from early treatment discontinuation. We examined modifications of this approach, taking into consideration treatment-related and nontreatment-related reasons for discontinuation. METHODS: Two duloxetine chronic pain trials (placebo-controlled) were used to examine the impact of different analytical methods on study outcome. Reasons for discontinuation were categorized as treatment-related and nontreatment-related. Missing data in the primary efficacy outcome were handled using five statistical methods: mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF), BOCF, modified BOCF (mBOCF, discontinuation due to treatment-related reasons, ie, adverse events [AEs] or lack of efficacy), and aeBOCF (discontinuation due to AEs only). RESULTS: Duloxetine was superior to placebo on mean change from baseline in Brief Pain Inventory average pain rating, using MMRM (study 1, P = 0.004; study 2, P < 0.001), LOCF (study 1, P = 0.019; study 2, P < 0.001), BOCF (study 1, P = 0.019; study 2, P = 0.013), and mBOCF (study 1, P = 0.041; study 2, P = 0.005). Using aeBOCF, duloxetine was superior to placebo in study 2 (P = 0.005) and numerically better in study 1 (P = 0.075). CONCLUSION: Due to the different assumptions made by various methods regarding accounting for missing data, the analytical methods chosen may influence the interpretation of study results. Consideration should be given to the effect of actual treatment outcomes from patients. Employing different statistical approaches such as sensitivity analyses may help to assess the robustness of the study results and provide a more accurate reflection of the treatment outcome.

Characteristics of placebo responders in pediatric clinical trials of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding placebo response is a prerequisite to improving clinical trial methodology. Data from placebo-controlled trials of atomoxetine in the treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were analyzed to identify demographic and clinical characteristics that might predict placebo response in future clinical trials. METHOD: Data were pooled across 731 placebo-treated pediatric patients who participated in 10 acute, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Responder status was based on empirically derived thresholds of change on the total score of the ADHD Rating Scale with minimal and robust response defined as 25% or greater and 40% or greater decrease, respectively. Study design characteristics, including randomization ratio, dose, and titration strategy, and patient demographic and clinical characteristics were examined as potential predictors of placebo response. RESULTS: Inattentive subtype, lack of previous stimulant treatment, presence of comorbid tics and nonwhite ethnicity were associated with robust placebo response. A subset analysis of patients completing 6 weeks of treatment (to eliminate the effects of early dropout) identified inattentive subtype and lack of previous stimulant experience as significant predictors of robust placebo response. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo response is less likely in subjects with combined-subtype ADHD who are not stimulant-naive. Limiting ADHD clinical trials to this more restricted subject group is likely to maximize treatment differences. However, because this is not always possible or desirable, identifying other methods of mitigating placebo response is essential.

A 1-year safety and efficacy study of duloxetine in patients with fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine at doses up to 120 mg once daily in patients with fibromyalgia. METHODS: This was a phase 3, 60-week study, which included an 8-week open-label period followed by a 52-week, randomized, double-blind period. Patients received duloxetine 30 mg daily for 1 week and duloxetine 60 mg daily for 7 weeks and were then randomized to receive either 60 or 120 mg daily (1:2 ratio). RESULTS: Enrolled patients (N=350, 95.7% female) exhibited moderate disease symptoms at study entry (Brief Pain Inventory average pain=6.7, Clinical Global Impression of Severity=4.1, and Patient's Global Impression of Severity=4.1). Significant pain reduction in patients was observed during the open-label study phase. This pain reduction continued during the 52-week double-blind study phase, as demonstrated by additional mean decreases in the Brief Pain Inventory average pain score within both duloxetine groups. The most common (> or =15%) treatment-emergent adverse events (overall phase) were nausea, headache, insomnia, dizziness, constipation, and dry mouth. Seventy-four (21.1%) patients reported adverse events as a reason for discontinuation [most common (>1%) were insomnia, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, and nausea]. The mean change (SD) in sitting systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) was -0.1 (14.4), in sitting diastolic blood pressure was -0.2 (9.6), in sitting pulse rate was 1.9 (10.4) bpm, and in weight was 0.7 (4.3) kg. DISCUSSION: The profile of duloxetine for the long-term treatment of fibromyalgia was consistent with that seen in other indications for which the drug is currently marketed.

Relationship between atomoxetine plasma concentration, treatment response and tolerability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbid oppositional defiant disorder.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether atomoxetine plasma concentration predicts attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) response. This post-hoc analysis assessed the relationship between atomoxetine plasma concentration and ADHD and ODD symptoms in patients (with ADHD and comorbid ODD) aged 6-12 years. Patients were randomly assigned to atomoxetine 1.2 mg/kg/day (n=156) or placebo (n=70) for 8 weeks (Study Period II). At the end of 8 weeks, ODD non-remitters (score >9 on the SNAP-IV ODD subscale and CGI-I > 2) with atomoxetine plasma concentration <800 ng/ml at 2 weeks were re-randomized to either atomoxetine 1.2 mg/kg/day or 2.4 mg/kg/day for an additional 4 weeks (Study Period III). ODD remitters and non-remitters with plasma atomoxetine ≥800 ng/ml remained on 1.2 mg/kg/day atomoxetine for 4 weeks. Patients who received atomoxetine, completed Study Period II, and entered Study Period III were included in these analyses. All the groups demonstrated improvement on the SNAP-IV ODD and ADHD-combined subscales (P<.001). At the end of Study Periods II and III, ODD and ADHD improvement was significantly greater in the remitter group compared with the non-remitter groups. Symptom improvement was numerically greater in the non-remitter (2.4 mg/kg/day compared with the non-remitter 1.2 mg/kg/day) group. Atomoxetine plasma concentration was not indicative of ODD and ADHD improvement after 12 weeks of treatment. ADHD and ODD symptoms improved in all the groups with longer duration on atomoxetine. Results suggest atomoxetine plasma concentration does not predict ODD and ADHD symptom improvement. However, a higher atomoxetine dose may benefit some patients.