Preclinical assessment of galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate), a first-in-class transforming growth factor-ß receptor type I inhibitor.

Transforming growth factor-ß (TGFß) is an important driver of tumor growth via intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms, and is therefore an attractive target for developing cancer therapeutics. Using preclinical models, we characterized the anti-tumor activity of a small molecule inhibitor of TGFß receptor I (TGFßRI), galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate). Galunisertib demonstrated potent and selective inhibition of TGFßRI with corresponding inhibition of downstream signaling via inhibition of SMAD phosphorylation (pSMAD). Galunisertib also inhibited TGFß-induced pSMAD in vivo, which enabled a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile in Calu6 and EMT6-LM2 tumors. Galunisertib demonstrated anti-tumor activity including inhibition of tumor cell migration and mesenchymal phenotype, reversal of TGFß-mediated immune-suppression, and tumor growth delay. A concentration-effect relationship was established with a dosing schedule to achieve the optimal level of target modulation. Finally, a rat model demonstrated a correlation between galunisertib-dependent inhibition of pSMAD in tumor tissues and in PBMCs, supporting the use of PBMCs for assessing pharmacodynamic effects. Galunisertib has been tested in several clinical studies with evidence of anti-tumor activity observed in subsets of patients. Here, we demonstrate that galunisertib inhibits a number of TGFß-dependent functions leading to anti-tumor activity. The enhanced understanding of galunisertib provides rationale for further informed clinical development of TGFß pathway inhibitors.

Biomarker and Histopathology Evaluation of Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma Treated with Galunisertib, Lomustine, or the Combination of Galunisertib and Lomustine.

Galunisertib, a Transforming growth factor-ßRI (TGF-ßRI) kinase inhibitor, blocks TGF-ß-mediated tumor growth in glioblastoma. In a three-arm study of galunisertib (300 mg/day) monotherapy (intermittent dosing; each cycle =14 days on/14 days off), lomustine monotherapy, and galunisertib plus lomustine therapy, baseline tumor tissue was evaluated to identify markers associated with tumor stage (e.g., histopathology, Ki67, glial fibrillary acidic protein) and TGF-ß-related signaling (e.g., pSMAD2). Other pharmacodynamic assessments included chemokine, cytokine, and T cell subsets alterations. 158 patients were randomized to galunisertib plus lomustine (n = 79), galunisertib (n = 39) and placebo+lomustine (n = 40). In 127 of these patients, tissue was adequate for central pathology review and biomarker work. Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1) negative glioblastoma patients with baseline pSMAD2⁺ in cytoplasm had median overall survival (OS) 9.5 months vs. 6.9 months for patients with no tumor pSMAD2 expression (p = 0.4574). Eight patients were IDH1 R132H⁺ and had a median OS of 10.4 months compared to 6.9 months for patients with negative IDH1 R132H (p = 0.5452). IDH1 status was associated with numerically higher plasma macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC/CCL22), higher whole blood FOXP3, and reduced tumor CD3⁺ T cell counts. Compared to the baseline, treatment with galunisertib monotherapy preserved CD4⁺ T cell counts, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and the CD4/CD8 ratio. The T-regulatory cell compartment was associated with better OS with MDC/CCL22 as a prominent prognostic marker.

Relative bioavailability of three formulations of galunisertib administered as monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate), an inhibitor of the transforming growth factor ß (TGFß) pathway, is currently under investigation in several clinical trials involving multiple tumor types. The primary objective of this study was to assess relative bioavailability of two new galunisertib formulations developed using the roller compaction (RC) dry-milled (RCD) and RC slurry-milled (RCS) processes, compared with the existing formulation developed using the high-sheer wet granulation (HSWG) process. The secondary objective was to report the safety profile after a single dose of the three formulations. METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastatic cancer were enrolled into this single-center, 3-period, 6-sequence crossover study. Patients were assigned sequentially to 1 of 6 sequences in blocks of 6 to ensure that all 6 sequences have the same number of completers. A patient entering a sequence received a different galunisertib formulation as a single 150 mg dose orally during each of the 3 periods. Each period was separated from the next by a washout interval of at least 48 hours. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, including area under curve (AUC) and Cmax, were computed using standard non-compartmentalized methods of analysis. For comparison of exposures between formulations, log-transformed AUC and Cmax values were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model. Safety assessments included adverse event monitoring, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Of the 14 patients who entered and completed the study, 13 patients were included in the final statistical analysis. AUC(0-tlast), AUC(0-48 h), and AUC(0-∞) for the RC formulations and the HSWG formulation were similar. Cmax was reduced by approximately 22% and tmax was longer by at least 1.00 h for the RCD and RCS formulations compared with the HSWG formulation. The RC formulations demonstrated a safety profile after a single dose similar to the HSWG formulation. CONCLUSIONS: In this relative bioavailability study comparing galunisertib formulations after a single dose, RCD and RCS formulations had similar exposure and safety profile compared with the HSWG formulation.

A Phase II randomized study of galunisertib monotherapy or galunisertib plus lomustine compared with lomustine monotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of galunisertib, a transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß receptor (R)1 kinase inhibitor, and lomustine was found to have antitumor activity in murine models of glioblastoma. METHODS: Galunisertib (300 mg/day) was given orally 14 days on/14 days off (intermittent dosing). Lomustine was given as approved. Patients were randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to galunisertib + lomustine, galunisertib monotherapy, or placebo + lomustine. The primary objective was overall survival (OS); secondary objectives were safety, pharmacokinetics (PKs), and antitumor activity. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-eight patients were randomized: galunisertib + lomustine (N = 79), galunisertib (N = 39), and placebo + lomustine (N = 40). Baseline characteristics were: male (64.6%), white (75.3%), median age 58 years, ECOG performance status (PS) 1 (63.3%), and primary glioblastoma (93.7%). The PKs of galunisertib were not altered with lomustine, and galunisertib had a median half-life of ∼8 hours. Median OS in months (95% credible interval [CrI]) for galunisertib + lomustine was 6.7 (range: 5.3-8.5), 8.0 (range: 5.7-11.7) for galunisertib alone, and 7.5 (range: 5.6-10.3) for placebo + lomustine. There was no difference in OS for patients treated with galunisertib + lomustine compared with placebo + lomustine [P (HR < 1) = 26%]. Median progression-free survival of ∼2 months was observed in all 3 arms. Among 8 patients with IDH1 mutation, 7 patients were treated with galunisertib (monotherapy or with lomustine); OS ranged from 4 to 17 months. Patients treated with galunisertib alone had fewer drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events (n = 34) compared with lomustine-treated patients (10% vs 26%). Baseline PS, post-discontinuation of bevacizumab, tumor size, and baseline levels of MDC/CCL22 were correlated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Galunisertib + lomustine failed to demonstrate improved OS relative to placebo + lomustine. Efficacy outcomes were similar in all 3 arms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01582269, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Clinical development of galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate), a small molecule inhibitor of transforming growth factor-beta signaling pathway.

Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-ß) signaling regulates a wide range of biological processes. TGF-ß plays an important role in tumorigenesis and contributes to the hallmarks of cancer, including tumor proliferation, invasion and metastasis, inflammation, angiogenesis, and escape of immune surveillance. There are several pharmacological approaches to block TGF-ß signaling, such as monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, antisense oligonucleotides, and small molecule inhibitors. Galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate) is an oral small molecule inhibitor of the TGF-ß receptor I kinase that specifically downregulates the phosphorylation of SMAD2, abrogating activation of the canonical pathway. Furthermore, galunisertib has antitumor activity in tumor-bearing animal models such as breast, colon, lung cancers, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Continuous long-term exposure to galunisertib caused cardiac toxicities in animals requiring adoption of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic-based dosing strategy to allow further development. The use of such a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model defined a therapeutic window with an appropriate safety profile that enabled the clinical investigation of galunisertib. These efforts resulted in an intermittent dosing regimen (14 days on/14 days off, on a 28-day cycle) of galunisertib for all ongoing trials. Galunisertib is being investigated either as monotherapy or in combination with standard antitumor regimens (including nivolumab) in patients with cancer with high unmet medical needs such as glioblastoma, pancreatic cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The present review summarizes the past and current experiences with different pharmacological treatments that enabled galunisertib to be investigated in patients.

First-in-human dose study of the novel transforming growth factor-ß receptor I kinase inhibitor LY2157299 monohydrate in patients with advanced cancer and glioma.

PURPOSE: TGFß signaling plays a key role in tumor progression, including malignant glioma. Small-molecule inhibitors such as LY2157299 monohydrate (LY2157299) block TGFß signaling and reduce tumor progression in preclinical models. To use LY2157299 in the treatment of malignancies, we investigated its properties in a first-in-human dose (FHD) study in patients with cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sixty-five patients (58 with glioma) with measurable and progressive malignancies were enrolled. Oral LY2157299 was given as a split dose morning and evening on an intermittent schedule of 14 days on and 14 days off (28-day cycle). LY2157299 monotherapy was studied in dose escalation (part A) first and then evaluated in combination with standard doses of lomustine (part B). Safety was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0, echocardiography/Doppler imaging, serum troponin I, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels. Antitumor activity was assessed by RECIST and Macdonald criteria. RESULTS: In part A, 16.6% (5/30) and in part B, 7.7% (2/26) of evaluable patients with glioma had either a complete (CR) or a partial response (PR). In both parts, 15 patients with glioma had stable disease (SD), 5 of whom had SD ≥ 6 cycles of treatment. Therefore, clinical benefit (CR+PR+SD ≥ 6 cycles) was observed in 12 of 56 patients with glioma (21.4%). LY2157299 was safe, with no cardiac adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity in patients with glioma, the intermittent administration of LY2157299 at 300 mg/day is safe for future clinical investigation.

PRONOUNCE: randomized, open-label, phase III study of first-line pemetrexed + carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients ith advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and biomarker evaluation of transforming growth factor-ß receptor I kinase inhibitor, galunisertib, in phase 1 study in patients with advanced cancer.

Purpose Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-ß) signaling plays a key role in epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) of tumors, including malignant glioma. Small molecule inhibitors (SMI) blocking TGF-ß signaling reverse EMT and arrest tumor progression. Several SMIs were developed, but currently only LY2157299 monohydrate (galunisertib) was advanced to clinical investigation. Design The first-in-human dose study had three parts (Part A, dose escalation, n = 39; Part B, safety combination with lomustine, n = 26; Part C, relative bioavailability study, n = 14). Results A preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model predicted a therapeutic window up to 300 mg/day and was confirmed in Part A after continuous PK/PD. PK was not affected by co-medications such as enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic drugs or proton pump inhibitors. Changes in pSMAD2 levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were associated with exposure indicating target-related pharmacological activity of galunisertib. Twelve (12/79; 15%) patients with refractory/relapsed malignant glioma had durable stable disease (SD) for 6 or more cycles, partial responses (PR), or complete responses (CR). These patients with clinical benefit had high plasma baseline levels of MDC/CCL22 and low protein expression of pSMAD2 in their tumors. Of the 5 patients with IDH1/2 mutation, 4 patients had a clinical benefit as defined by CR/PR and SD ≥6 cycles. Galunisertib had a favorable toxicity profile and no cardiac adverse events. Conclusion Based on the PK, PD, and biomarker evaluations, the intermittent administration of galunisertib at 300 mg/day is safe for future clinical investigation.

Suicidal thoughts and reasons for living in hospitalized patients with severe depression: post-hoc analyses of a double-blind randomized trial of duloxetine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate suicidal thoughts in relationship to depressive symptom severity and reasons for living in patients hospitalized for major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: A post hoc analysis was conducted of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial involving hospitalized patients with MDD (DSM-IV criteria) who received duloxetine 60 mg once daily or duloxetine 60 mg twice daily for 8 weeks. After 4 weeks, the dose for nonresponders receiving 60 mg once daily could be increased to 60 mg twice daily (double-blind). The study was conducted between February 9, 2007, and August 26, 2008 at 43 centers in 4 countries across Europe and South Africa. Suicidal thoughts were assessed with Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item 10, depression severity was assessed with the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, and protective factors were assessed with the patient-rated Reasons for Living Inventory (RFL) assessing 6 domains. Descriptive statistics, correlation, and linear regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: At baseline, patients (N = 336) had varying severity of suicidal thoughts: 18% had a score ≥ 4. The proportion of patients with a score ≥ 4 decreased to 7% at week 1 and 1% at week 8 of treatment. The RFL scores at baseline were lower in patients with higher baseline suicidal thoughts and increased significantly during treatment (P < .0001). A regression model revealed that only 16% of variance in baseline total RFL score is explained by the different MADRS items. Eight patients had suicidal behavior or ideation recorded as an adverse event during the study; no consistent pattern was found in the different psychometric scores either at baseline or at the visit preceding the suicidal behavior/ideation. CONCLUSIONS: Suicidality rapidly decreased in hospitalized patients with severe depression treated with duloxetine. The RFL scores were low at baseline but increased during treatment, suggesting that they are at least partially state rather than trait variables. Since RFL scores are lower in depressed inpatients, these scores lose the predictive value that they have in a general population sample. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00422162.

A phase I dose-escalation study to a predefined dose of a transforming growth factor-ß1 monoclonal antibody (TßM1) in patients with metastatic cancer.

Transforming growth factor ß (TGF-ß) plays an important role in cancer. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) designed to specifically block the TGF-ß ligands, are expected to inhibit tumor progression in patients with metastatic cancer. TßM1 is a humanized mAb optimized for neutralizing activity against TGF-ß1. The objective of this clinical trial was to assess the safety and tolerability of TßM1 in patients with metastatic cancer. In this phase I, uncontrolled, non-randomized, dose-escalation study, 18 eligible adult patients who had measurable disease per RECIST and a performance status of ≤ 2 on the ECOG scale were administered TßM1 intravenously over 10 min at doses of 20, 60, 120 and 240 mg on day 1 of each 28-day cycle. Safety was assessed by adverse events (as defined by CTCAE version 3.0) and possible relationship to study drug, dose-limiting toxicities and laboratory changes. Systemic drug exposure and pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters were assessed. TßM1 was safe when administered once monthly. The pharmacokinetic (PK) profile was consistent with a mAb with a mean elimination half-life approximately 9 days. Although anticipated changes in PD markers such as serum VEGF, bFGF and mRNA expression of SMAD7 were observed in whole-blood, suggesting activity of TßM1 on the targeted pathway, these changes were not consistent to represent a PD effect. Additionally, despite the presence of an activated TGF-ß1 expression signature in patients' whole blood, the short dosing duration did not translate into significant antitumor effect in the small number of patients investigated in this study.

A randomised phase II study of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+erlotinib as second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Pemetrexed and erlotinib have been approved as second-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel phase II study assessed efficacy and safety of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+erlotinib in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. METHODS: NSCLC stage III-IV patients who failed one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, ≥ 1 measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 were eligible. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) with vitamin B12 and folic acid q3w alone or combined with erlotinib 150 mg daily. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure (TTTF), response and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 165 randomised non-squamous patients, 159 were treated (pemetrexed: 83; pemetrexed+erlotinib: 76). The median PFS (months; 95% CI) was 2.89 (1.94, 3.38) for pemetrexed versus 3.19 (2.86, 4.70) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% CI: (0.44, 0.90); P = 0.0047). The median OS (months; 95% CI) was 7.75 (5.29, 10.41) for pemetrexed versus 11.83 (8.18, 16.66) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.98; P = 0.019). The median TTTF (months: 95% CI) was 2.4 (1.74, 2.99) for pemetrexed versus 3.0 (2.23, 4.07) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.89; P = 0.0034). One patient died in pemetrexed+erlotinib arm due to febrile neutropenia. Grades 3/4 drug-related toxicities (in ≥ 5% of patients) in pemetrexed/pemetrexed+erlotinib were febrile neutropenia (2.4%/10.5%), diarrhoea (1.2%/5.3%), rash (1.2%/9.2%); anaemia (6%/11.8%), leukopenia (9.6%/23.7%), neutropenia (9.6%/25.0%), and thrombocytopenia (4.8%/14.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed+erlotinib treatment significantly improved PFS, OS and TTTF in 2nd line non-squamous NSCLC and was associated with an increase in grade 3/4 toxicities compared with pemetrexed alone.

A randomized phase II non-comparative study of pemetrexed­carboplatin and gemcitabine­vinorelbine in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated advanced breast cancer patients.

Pemetrexed-carboplatin and gemcitabine­vinorelbine combination therapies were efficacious in phase II and phase III studies as first-line breast cancer treatment. Thus, Arm A and Arm B combinations were investigated in patients pretreated with anthracycline and taxanes. Women with advanced breast cancer, with ≥1 measurable lesion per RECIST, were stratified by line of treatment (1st, 2nd), visceral disease (yes/no), ECOG PS (0-1 vs. 2) and randomized 1:1 to Arm A (pemetrexed 600 mg/m², D1 i.v. q21; carboplatin, AUC 5, D1 i.v. q21) or Arm B (gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m² D1, D8 i.v. q21; vinorelbine 30 mg/m² D1, D8 i.v. q21). Treatment continued until progression. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (RR). Secondary endpoints were duration of response (DoR), time-to-response (TTR), time-to-progressive disease (TTPD), time-to-treatment failure (TTTF) and safety. A two-stage design was employed independently for each arm. Of 135 randomized patients, 125 (Arm A, n=64; Arm B, n=61) qualified for tumor-response analysis. The mean (standard deviation) number of cycles administered was 6.3 (4.13) in Arm A and 6.2 (4.39) in Arm B. Efficacy in Arm A and Arm B were: RR (95% CI), 26.6 (16.3-39.1) and 29.5 (18.5-42.6); time-to-events (months), DoR 7.7 and 7.5; TTPD, 5.1 and 5.6; TTR, 1.8 and 1.8; TTTF, 4.8 and 5.1; respectively. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events possibly related to study-drug were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia and leucopenia in Arm A and neutropenia, leucopenia and fatigue in Arm B. In this study, both combinations showed moderate activity as predefined RR was not reached and were well tolerated.

A review of the abuse potential assessment of atomoxetine: a nonstimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

RATIONALE: Treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has for many years relied on psychostimulants, particularly various formulations of amphetamines and methylphenidate. These are central nervous system stimulants and are scheduled because of their abuse potential. Atomoxetine (atomoxetine hydrochloride; Strattera®) was approved in 2002 for treatment of ADHD, and was the first nonstimulant medication approved for this disorder. It was classified as an unscheduled medication indicating a low potential for abuse. However, the abuse potential of atomoxetine has not been reviewed. OBJECTIVES: In this article, we review the evidence regarding abuse potential of atomoxetine, a selective inhibitor of the presynaptic norepinephrine transporter, which is unscheduled/unrestricted in all countries where it is approved. METHODS: Results from receptor binding, in vitro electrophysiology, in vivo microdialysis, preclinical behavioral, and human laboratory studies have been reviewed. RESULTS: Atomoxetine has no appreciable affinity for, or action at, central receptors through which drugs of abuse typically act, i.e., dopamine transporters, GABA(A) receptors, and opioid µ receptors. In behavioral experiments in rodents, atomoxetine does not increase locomotor activity, and in drug discrimination studies, its profile is similar to that of drugs without abuse potential. Atomoxetine does not serve as a reinforcer in monkey self-administration studies, and human laboratory studies suggest that atomoxetine does not induce subjective effects indicative of abuse. CONCLUSION: Neurochemical, preclinical, and early clinical studies predicted and supported a lack of abuse potential of atomoxetine, which is consistent with the clinical trial and postmarketing spontaneous event data in the past 10 years.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine 60 mg once daily in major depressive disorder: a review with expert commentary.

OBJECTIVE: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a significant public health concern and challenges health care providers to intervene with appropriate treatment. This article provides an overview of efficacy and safety information for duloxetine 60 mg/day in the treatment of MDD, including its effect on painful physical symptoms (PPS). DESIGN: A literature search was conducted for articles and pooled analyses reporting information regarding the use of duloxetine 60 mg/day in placebo-controlled trials. SETTING: Placebo-controlled, active-comparator, short- and long-term studies were reviewed. PARTICIPANTS: Adult (≥18 years) patients with MDD. MEASUREMENTS: Effect sizes for continuous outcome (change from baseline to endpoint) and categorical outcome (response and remission rates) were calculated using the primary measures of 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) or Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The Brief Pain Inventory and Visual Analogue Scales were used to assess improvements in PPS. Glass estimation method was used to calculate effect sizes, and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated based on HAMD-17 and MADRS total scores for remission and response rates. Safety data were examined via the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and by mean changes in vital-sign measures. RESULTS: Treatment with duloxetine was associated with small-to-moderate effect sizes in the range of 0.12 to 0.72 for response rate and 0.07 to 0.65 for remission rate. NNTs were in the range of 3 to 16 for response and 3 to 29 for remission. Statistically significant improvements (p≤0.05) were observed in duloxetine-treated patients compared to placebo-treated patients in PPS and quality of life. The safety profile of the 60-mg dose was consistent with duloxetine labeling, with the most commonly observed significant adverse events being nausea, dry mouth, diarrhea, dizziness, constipation, fatigue, and decreased appetite. CONCLUSION: These results reinforce the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine 60 mg/day as an effective short- and long-term treatment for adults with MDD. The evidence of the independent analgesic effect of duloxetine 60 mg/day supports its use as a treatment for patients with PPS associated with depression. This review is limited by the fact that it included randomized clinical trials with different study designs. Furthermore, data from randomized controlled trials may not generalize well to real clinical practice.

Pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: functional outcomes in children and adolescents from non-Western countries.

OBJECTIVE: Functional outcomes were measured over a 12-month period in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) after they received monotherapy. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, noninterventional study. SETTING: Conducted in six non-Western countries. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients 6 to 17 years of age with a verified diagnosis of ADHD in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), together with their physicians, decided to initiate or switch treatment for ADHD. Patients were prescribed pharmacological monotherapy: methylphenidate (n=221), nootropic agents (n=91), or atomoxetine (n=234). MEASUREMENTS: Patients were followed for changes in their functional status and quality of life, which were assessed with the Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition (CHIP-CE) Achievement domain. RESULTS: At the end of the study, a mean improvement on the CHIP-CE Achievement domain score was observed for all countries and therapies except in Taiwan, where patients received atomoxetine, and in Lebanon, where patients received methylphenidate. No patient experienced a serious adverse event during the study. Four patients discontinued due to a treatment-emergent adverse event. CONCLUSION: After 12 months of treatment, clinical and functional outcomes were improved in children and adolescents from non-Western countries who initiated and remained on their prescribed pharmacological monotherapy.

Time course of improvement of different symptom clusters in patients with major depression and pain treated with duloxetine or placebo.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed improvements in a broad range of psychopathological dimensions and in interference of pain with functioning as well as the time course of these improvements in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and pain treated with duloxetine versus placebo. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were derived from an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult outpatients with MDD and non-specific physical pain. Mean times between improvement in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference of pain with functioning, depression severity, and dimensions of the Symptom Checklist-90 Revised (SCL-90-R) subscales were evaluated by responder analysis. RESULTS: For all SCL-90-R subscores, a higher percentage of duloxetine-treated patients reached responder status (50% improvement) as compared to placebo, of these anger/hostility and interpersonal sensitivity had the highest response rates. In the duloxetine-treated group, response for anger/hostility, phobic anxiety, psychoticism, and most items assessing interference of pain with functioning was reached earlier than response for pain severity. The times to response for Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and for pain severity were similar. In the placebo-treated group, times to response for depression, anxiety, and MADRS were longer than response for pain severity. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine, and to a lesser degree placebo, not only improved depressive symptomatology and pain severity but also a much broader range of psychopathological symptoms. Time courses of improvements were different for duloxetine and placebo, in that depression and interference of pain with functioning improved earlier than pain severity in duloxetine-treated patients but not in placebo-treated patients. These results suggest that time to response is a valuable means of characterizing treatment effects. LIMITATIONS: Pain was only assessed as a symptom and no further clinical diagnosis for pain syndromes were performed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY ID: www.clinicaltrial.gov - NCT00191919.

Duloxetine versus placebo in the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder in China.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine is approved for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in the United States and elsewhere. This study aimed to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of duloxetine in Chinese patients with GAD. METHODS: This 9-site study consisted of double-blind treatment for 15 weeks either with duloxetine 60 - 120 mg or with placebo. Patients with at least moderately severe GAD and a Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) global functioning impairment total score ≥ 12 were included in this study. Patients who were randomly assigned to duloxetine received 60 mg for 7 weeks; at that point, for nonresponders the dose was increased to 120 mg for the remaining 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline to endpoint on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale score (HADS-A). Secondary efficacy measures included the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), the SDS, and pain measures. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Mean age of the subjects (n = 210) was 37.6 years, 50.5% were female, and 74.3% completed the 15 weeks treatment. Patients treated with duloxetine had significantly greater improvement compared to placebo on the HADS-A (mean change -6.6 vs. -4.9, respectively, P = 0.022). Improvement in anxiety was greater with duloxetine treatment at 7 weeks and continued through 15 weeks for both the HADS-A and the HAMA total score (0.01 ≤ P < 0.05). Compared with placebo, duloxetine was also associated with greater improvement on most secondary measures, but not on the SDS global functioning score. Nausea, dizziness, and somnolence occurred significantly more frequently as treatment-emergent adverse events with duloxetine treatment compared with placebo treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine 60 - 120 mg once daily is effective and well-tolerated for the treatment of patients with GAD in China.

Effect of atomoxetine on Tanner stage sexual development in children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: 18-month results from a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of long-term atomoxetine treatment on sexual development in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as compared with placebo and with a national US survey in non-Hispanic white children and adolescents. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, relapse prevention, multicenter trial was conducted in pediatric patients (6-15 years) with DSM-IV diagnosed ADHD and lasting for ∼ 18 months. All patients received 10 weeks of open-label atomoxetine treatment (0.5-1.8 mg/kg/day). Patients responding in the last 2 weeks of treatment were randomized to double-blind treatment with either placebo or atomoxetine for up to 9 months, after which atomoxetine patients were re-randomized to either continued atomoxetine treatment or to placebo for up to another 6 months. Patients randomized to placebo at first randomization remained on placebo. The Tanner stage was assessed by the investigator at baseline and at approximately 6, 12, and 18 months, and the rate of sexual development (change in the Tanner stage) was compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between treatment groups either in sexual development (mean time, in days, to the first Tanner stage change: atomoxetine, 464.3 ± 23.0; placebo, 433.1 ± 14.4; p = 0.33) or in the duration of treatment exposure (atomoxetine, 315.3 days; placebo, 315.1 days; p = 0.90). Similar proportions of patients had at least one Tanner stage increase (atomoxetine: 27.1%; placebo: 31.9%; p = 0.39). Proportions of patients in each baseline Tanner stage group moving to higher stages were not statistically significantly different (p = 0.88, p = 0.18, p > 0.99, p = 0.68 for baseline Tanner stages 1-4, respectively). The puberty onset age was similar across treatment groups and consistent with US normative data. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term atomoxetine treatment was not associated with any appreciable impact on or delay in sexual maturation in children with ADHD compared with US normative data. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include the relatively short duration of exposure to atomoxetine treatment, and the fact that half of the patients had been previously treated with stimulants. In addition, the Tanner stage data were collected as a secondary measure.

A phase I safety study of enzastaurin plus bortezomib in the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and identify the recommended doses of enzastaurin and bortezomib in combination for future Phase II studies in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Three dose levels (DLs) of oral enzastaurin and intravenous bortezomib were used according to a conventional "3 + 3" design. A loading dose of enzastaurin (250 mg twice/day [BID]) on Day 1 was followed by enzastaurin 125 mg BID for 1 week, after which bortezomib was added (Cycle 1, 28 days, 1.0 mg/m(2) : Days 8, 11, 15, and 18; seven subsequent 21-day cycles, 1.3 mg/m(2) : Days 1, 4, 8, and 11). Twenty-three patients received treatment; all patients received prior systemic therapy. Most patients received ≥3 regimens; 17 patients were bortezomib-refractory. A median of four treatment cycles (range 1-24) was completed. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed; thus, DL 3 was the recommended Phase II dose. The most common drug-related Grade 3/4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (n = 6) and anemia (n = 2). No patients died on therapy. One patient (DL 1) achieved a very good partial response; three patients (DLs 2 and 3), a partial response; nine patients, stable disease; and four patients, progressive disease. The recommended Phase II doses in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma are as follows: enzastaurin loading dose of 375 mg three times/day on Day 1 followed by 250 mg BID, with bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 21-day cycle. The combination was well-tolerated and demonstrated some antimyeloma activity.

Functional impairment related to painful physical symptoms in patients with generalized anxiety disorder with or without comorbid major depressive disorder: post hoc analysis of a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is the most frequent anxiety disorder in primary care patients. It is known that painful physical symptoms (PPS) are associated with GAD, regardless the presence of comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD). However the specific role of such symptoms in patients' functional impairment is not well understood. The objective of the present study is to assess functional impairment related to the presence of PPS in patients with GAD. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a cross-sectional study. Functioning, in the presence (overall pain score >30; Visual Analog Scale) or absence of PPS, was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in three groups of patients; 1) GAD and comorbid MDD (GAD+MDD+), 2) GAD without comorbid MDD (GAD+MDD-), 3) controls (GAD-MDD-). ANCOVA models were used. RESULTS: Of those patients with GAD+MDD+ (n = 559), 436 (78.0%) had PPS, compared with GAD+MDD- (249 of 422, 59%) and controls (95 of 336, 28.3%). Functioning worsened in both GAD groups in presence of PPS (SDS least squares mean total score: 16.1 vs. 9.8, p < 0.0001, GAD+MDD+; 14.3 vs. 8.2, p < 0.0001, GAD+MDD-). The presence of PPS was significantly associated with less productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Functional impairment related to the presence of PPS was relevant. Clinical implications should be considered.