Genetic association study of treatment response with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination or lamotrigine in bipolar I depression.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate common genetic variations for association with symptomatic improvement in bipolar I depression following treatment with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) or lamotrigine. METHOD: Symptom improvement was assessed in 88 OFC-treated and 85 lamotrigine-treated white patients with bipolar I depression in the 7-week acute period of a randomized, double-blind study comparing OFC (6/25, 6/50, 12/25, or 12/50 mg/d [olanzapine/fluoxetine]) with lamotrigine (titrated to 200 mg/d). The original study was conducted from November 2003 to August 2004. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped in a set of 19 candidate genes corresponding to known sites of activity for olanzapine and fluoxetine or previously associated with antidepressant or antipsychotic response. Primary outcome was the reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score as assessed by the difference by genotype from baseline to week 7 from a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis with terms for visit, genotype, genotype-by-visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score as a covariate. RESULTS: SNPs within the dopamine D(3) receptor and histamine H(1) receptor (HRH1) genes were significantly associated with response to OFC. SNPs within the dopamine D(2) receptor, HRH1, dopamine beta-hydroxylase, glucocorticoid receptor, and melanocortin 2 receptor genes were significantly associated with response to lamotrigine. CONCLUSIONS: SNPs in specific candidate genes were associated with symptomatic improvement in a treatment-specific fashion. These results suggest the importance of dopaminergic effects in the treatment of patients with bipolar I depression and the potential utility of genotyping in selection of pharmacologic treatments for bipolar depression.

Number needed to treat or harm analyses of olanzapine for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) or the number-needed-to-harm (NNH) analysis was performed on olanzapine and comparators for all known controlled clinical studies of olanzapine for bipolar maintenance treatment or relapse prevention to assess safety and efficacy. Studies compared olanzapine (n = 225) and placebo (n = 136) for 12 months, olanzapine (n = 217) and lithium (n = 214) for 12 months, and olanzapine plus lithium or valproate (n = 72) and placebo plus lithium or valproate (n = 64) for 18 months. For prevention of all-cause treatment discontinuation, the NNT was 7 to 8. For 9 of 11 efficacy and disposition measures examined, beneficial outcomes were more common with olanzapine than placebo. Beneficial outcomes were more common with olanzapine than lithium for 7 measures and more common for olanzapine plus lithium or valproate than placebo plus lithium or valproate for 1 measure. The NNHs of 5 to 8 for a weight gain of 7% or higher and 10 to 11 for the increase in body mass index category to overweight or obese during maintenance treatment indicated that these outcomes were more common for olanzapine or olanzapine plus mood stabilizers than for the comparators. All efficacy and disposition measures showing significant differences between groups for 12 to 18 months have NNTs favoring olanzapine or olanzapine plus lithium or valproate over placebo, lithium, or placebo plus lithium or valproate. However, the NNHs favor these comparators for avoidance of weight gain and of increase in body mass index category to overweight or obese. Clinicians should consider these and other potential benefits and risks in using maintenance treatments for patients with a bipolar disorder.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of the combination of fluoxetine and olanzapine in outpatients with bipolar depression: an open-label, randomized, flexible-dose study in Puerto Rico.

We studied the effectiveness of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) treatment of bipolar depressive episode (7 weeks, study period 1 [SP1]). Study period 1 responders (mean modal daily OFC dosage, 10.8/27.8 mg) were randomized to OFC continuation treatment or olanzapine (OLZ) monotherapy starting at 10 mg (12 weeks, SP2). Seventy-three percent of the 114 patients who entered into SP2 completed the trial. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score changes from baseline in SP1 (primary outcome) were significant (-20 +/- 10, P < 0.001) and, during SP2, worsened for patients in the OLZ group (OFC vs OLZ, -0.4 +/- 7.55 vs +8.2 +/- 14.1, respectively; P < 0.001). During SP1, 69% responded and 59% remitted. During SP2, significantly more patients in the OFC group maintained response (31.3% vs 12.5%) and remission (71.4% vs 39.6%) than patients in the OLZ group. Treatment-emergent adverse events with OFC (SP1 and SP2) included increased appetite, increased weight, somnolence, anxiety, insomnia, and depressed mood. Since visit 1, the mean weight increases (in pounds) were 4.8 +/- 6.8 for SP1 (P < 0.001) and 6.3 +/- 10.3 (OFC) or 10.7 +/- 11.3 (OLZ) for SP2; 50% (OLZ) and 33% (OFC) of the patients had a 7% or higher weight increase. For cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels and some hepatic enzymes, there were statistically and clinically significant changes in both study periods but no differences between the SP2 groups. Study limitations included the open-label design and exclusion of the SP1 nonresponders from SP2. These study results suggest that improvements resulting from 7 weeks of acute OFC treatment of a bipolar depressive episode are maintained in responders for an additional 12 weeks with OFC, but switching to OLZ alone may result in symptom worsening.

Once-daily atomoxetine for treating pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: comparison of morning and evening dosing.

In this 3-arm, randomized, double-blind trial, once-daily morning-dosed atomoxetine, evening-dosed atomoxetine, and placebo were compared for treating pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Patients received morning atomoxetine/evening placebo (n = 102), morning placebo/evening atomoxetine (n = 93), or morning placebo/evening placebo (n = 93) for about 6 weeks. Core symptom efficacy was measured at weeks 0, 1, 3, and 6. Parent assessments of the child's home behaviors in the evening and early morning were collected daily during the first 2 weeks of treatment. Morning-dosed and evening-dosed atomoxetine significantly decreased core ADHD symptoms relative to placebo and produced symptom improvements that were measured up to 24 hours later. Morning dosing was superior to evening dosing on some efficacy measures. Evening dosing showed greater tolerability with significantly more patients receiving morning atomoxetine reporting at least 1 adverse event than those receiving evening atomoxetine.

Clinical responses to atomoxetine in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the Integrated Data Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) study.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical experience suggests that some (but not all) patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are highly responsive to the nonstimulant atomoxetine. We conducted a retrospective analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify potential baseline (moderator) and on-treatment (mediator) predictors of responses. METHOD: Data from 6 U.S. RCTs among patients aged 6 to 18 years were pooled (N = 1,069; subjects treated with atomoxetine, n = 618). Subjects were categorized as much improved (> or = 40% decrease in ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator Administered and Scored total score), minimally improved (25%-< 40% decline), or nonresponders (< 25% decrease). Logistic regression, analyses of variance, and repeated-measures analyses were used to explore associations between baseline and on-treatment variables, achieving a much improved response at trial endpoint (6-9 weeks). RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of patients showed a much improved clinical response, and 40% did not respond. Only 13% of the patients had a minimal response. No baseline characteristics predicted achieving a much improved clinical response; the only predictor of achieving this response was being at least minimally improved by treatment week 4 (sensitivity = 81%, specificity = 72%, positive predictive value = 75%, and negative predictive value = 79%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical response to atomoxetine was bimodal, with most subjects being either responders who were much improved or nonresponders. There were no demographic or clinical predictors of response. However, subjects who ultimately achieved a much improved response were likely to be at least minimal responders by week 4. The recommendation to consider either augmenting or switching treatment in patients who do not achieve at least this level of response to atomoxetine by 4 weeks offers a method for limiting the extended duration of titration to subjects who are most likely to benefit further, while minimizing the duration of exposure in those less likely to achieve an excellent response.

Variation in catechol-O-methyltransferase is associated with duloxetine response in a clinical trial for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to evaluate variations in genes implicated in antidepressant mechanism of action for association with response to duloxetine treatment in major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: We assessed response over 6 weeks in 250 duloxetine-treated Caucasian patients in a randomized, double-blind study of patients with MDD. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped in 19 candidate genes selected based on evidence for involvement in antidepressant mechanism of action. Primary analysis examined baseline to end point reduction in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) total score, using a set-based test for association for each gene. Follow-up analyses examined individual SNPs within any significant gene for association with reduction in HAMD17 and 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated (IDS-C-30). RESULTS: After correction for multiple comparisons, only COMT was associated with change in HAMD17 (experiment wide p = .018). Peak association was detected with rs165599 (p = .006), which accounted for approximately 3% of variance in HAMD17 change and >4% of variance in IDS-C-30 change (p = .001). The least-squared mean change (SE) in HAMD17 score by rs165599 genotype was -10.8 (1.2), -8.7 (.6), and -6.5 (.7) for patients with GG, GA, and AA genotypes, respectively. For SNPs in serotonin 2A receptor (HTR2A) previously associated with citalopram response, including rs7997012, no significant evidence of association with duloxetine response was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Single nucleotide polymorphisms in COMT were associated with symptom change in duloxetine-treated patients with MDD. If replicated, the magnitude of the COMT genotype effect is of clinical relevance.

Subjective and objective measures of sleep in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To compare objective and subjective measures of sleep in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and healthy control subjects. METHODS: Included were 107 unmedicated children with ADHD and 46 healthy control subjects, all aged 6-14. Sleep-wake patterns were monitored with actigraphy for at least five consecutive days. Subjects and parents completed daily electronic diaries assessing sleep and daytime behavior. RESULTS: Actigraphy data from 80 ADHD patients and 45 control subjects showed that, compared to the healthy control group, the ADHD group experienced shorter actual sleep time (defined as time in minutes [from sleep onset to final morning awakening] of all epochs scored as sleep [i.e., excluding total duration of all epochs scored as "wake"]) (489.39 vs. 460.30min, p=.001), significantly fewer sleep interruptions (44.45 vs. 35.33, p<.001), but more total interrupted sleep time (44.49 vs. 56.70min, p=.002). Child diaries indicated children with ADHD had significantly more daytime sleepiness and difficulty getting up and less refreshing sleep. Parent diaries indicated children with ADHD had significantly more behavioral difficulties than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest children with ADHD have reduced sleep quantity and more disturbed sleep on actigraphic measures, reduced sleep quality on the self report, and more problematic behaviors on the parent report. Clinical interventions for children with ADHD who present with sleep problems should include screening for etiologic and exacerbating factors, institution of behavioral-management strategies, and consideration of pharmacologic treatment targeted toward evening ADHD symptoms.

Maintenance of response following stabilization of mixed index episodes with olanzapine monotherapy in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of bipolar 1 disorder.

BACKGROUND: In a population of patients with manic and mixed mood episodes, olanzapine has proven effective in maintaining response, as compared to placebo. Whether this is true for the subpopulation of patients with a mixed index episode is not known. METHODS: Post-hoc analyses were conducted on data from patients presenting with a mixed index episode who were enrolled in a larger double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients who met remission criteria at 2 consecutive weekly visits during 6 to 12 weeks of open-label olanzapine treatment were randomly assigned to olanzapine or placebo treatment for 48 weeks. The incidence of and time to symptomatic relapse were calculated for any mood episode, and for depressive, manic, hypo-manic, and mixed mood episodes. RESULTS: A total of 121 of 304 patients (39.8%) met criteria for symptomatic remission in the open-label treatment phase and were randomly assigned to olanzapine (n=76) or placebo (n=45). Compared to the placebo group, the olanzapine group had a lower incidence of (59.2% versus 91.1%, p<0.001) and a longer time to (46 versus 15 days, p<0.001) symptomatic relapse of any kind. Olanzapine-treated patients also experienced longer time to depressive symptomatic relapse (85 versus 22 days, p=0.001) and manic symptomatic relapse (too few relapses to calculate versus 42 days, p<0.001) than did placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, olanzapine treatment was associated with longer maintenance of response in patients presenting with a mixed index episode of bipolar I disorder.

Atomoxetine treatment for pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with comorbid anxiety disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Research suggests 25% to 35% of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have comorbid anxiety disorders. This double-blind study compared atomoxetine with placebo for treating pediatric ADHD with comorbid anxiety, as measured by the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator Administered and Scored (ADHDRS-IV-PI) and the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS). METHOD: Patients (ages 8-17 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for ADHD and generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxiety disorder, and/or social phobia were randomized to 12 weeks of atomoxetine (n = 87) or placebo (n = 89). ADHDRS-IV-PI and PARS total scores were analyzed using analysis of covariance last observation carried forward and repeated-measures analyses. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients in each group completed the study. Mean ADHDRS-IV-PI total score improved significantly for atomoxetine (n = 55; -10.5, SD 10.6) relative to placebo (n = 58; -1.4, SD 8.3; p < .001). Mean PARS total score also improved significantly for atomoxetine (n = 55; -5.5, SD 4.8) relative to placebo (n = 58; -3.2, SD 5.0; p = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine was efficacious in reducing ADHD symptoms in patients who have ADHD with comorbid anxiety and was well tolerated. There was also a significant reduction in independently assessed anxiety symptoms using both clinician-rated and self-rated measures, which merits further investigation. Results support consideration of atomoxetine for the treatment of ADHD in youths who have ADHD with comorbid anxiety disorder. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The LYBP study, on which this article is based, was not registered at clinicaltrials.gov because the last patient visit occurred before July 1, 2005. Results, however, are publicly posted at lillytrials.com and clinicalstudyresults.org. The unique study ID at both sites is 6477a.

The Life Participation Scale for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder--Child Version: psychometric properties of an adaptive change instrument.

INTRODUCTION: The Life Participation Scale for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)-Child Version (LPS-C) was developed to capture treatment-related improvements in adaptive functioning, including quality of life, social development, and emotion regulation, that may be missed by scales that assess only the 18 ADHD symptoms in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV). The 24-item LPS-C is intended to augment traditional ADHD measures. This analysis assessed the scale's psychometric properties. METHODS: The LPS-C was completed by the investigators while questioning the parents of 979 children in three placebo-controlled clinical trials that measured the effects of atomoxetine for treating ADHD. In addition to a factor analysis, assessments of responsiveness; internal consistency; item-to-total correlations; and convergent, divergent, and discriminant validity were completed. RESULTS: The LPS-C showed evidence of internal consistency and convergent, divergent, and discriminant validity. The factor analysis suggested two subscales (labeled the Self-Control and Agreeable subscales). The LPS-C demonstrated responsiveness in two of the three trials. The effect sizes suggest responsiveness between that for psychosocial measures and core symptom measures. CONCLUSIONS: The LPS-C appears to be a valid research and clinical instrument for assessing change in ADHD-related adaptive functioning that may not be captured by traditional measures of core ADHD symptoms.

Quality of life assessment in adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treated with atomoxetine.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has its onset during childhood and is estimated to affect 3% to 7% of school-aged children. Unfortunately, the disorder frequently persists into adult life. The burden of this disorder is considerable and is often characterized by academic (or occupational) impairment and dysfunction within the family and society. Despite the existence of research demonstrating the effects of ADHD on certain aspects of life, the clinical trials of treatments for this disorder have focused primarily on efficacy and safety. METHODS: Atomoxetine was approved in the United States in November 2002 for the treatment of ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. The present study uses data from a clinical trial of atomoxetine in adult patients with ADHD that incorporated a measure of health-related quality of life (the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey [SF-36]) as part of the overall assessment of the success of this relatively new treatment. The primary outcome measure for ADHD symptoms was the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated: Screening Version (CAARS) ADHD total symptom score. RESULTS: In agreement with previous studies, adult patients with ADHD treated with atomoxetine at typical doses showed significant amelioration of ADHD symptoms, as measured on the CAARS. At baseline, the measures of overall mental health (one aspect of quality of life) of adult patients with ADHD were below the average level, as measured on the SF-36. Treatment with atomoxetine significantly improved the measures of mental health and ameliorated the ADHD symptoms. In addition, the 2 measures were correlated. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that pharmacological intervention with atomoxetine not only ameliorates ADHD symptoms in adult patients but also improves their perceived quality of life.

Safety and tolerability of once versus twice daily atomoxetine in adults with ADHD.

BACKGROUND: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a disorder characterized by hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and inattention that affects 4% of adults. Atomoxetine hydrochloride is an FDA-approved treatment for adult ADHD, but no studies have clarified whether there are advantages to once versus twice daily dosing. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study compared safety and tolerability of 80 mg atomoxetine QD versus 40 mg atomoxetine BID in 218 adults with ADHD. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory values, vital signs, weight, electrocardiograms, scores on the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale, and efficacy (using the Conners' ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated: Screening Version) were assessed. RESULTS: The overall incidence for any one TEAE was low. There was no significant treatment group difference in likelihood of patients experiencing >/=1 of the four most commonly observed TEAEs (dry mouth, insomnia, nausea, and erectile dysfunction). Frequency of nausea was significantly lower in the 40 mg BID group (16.4%) than the 80 mg QD group (32.4%; p = .007). There were no unexpected safety results. Although both QD and BID treatments were efficacious, the reduction in scores was greater for BID treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Data indicate both dosing strategies are safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in the treatment of adult ADHD. Changes in dosing strategy are unlikely to be accompanied by safety risks, implying that there is room for prescribers to use discretion and to base dosing strategies on individual factors.

Is quality of life among minimally symptomatic patients with schizophrenia better following withdrawal or continuation of antipsychotic treatment?

This secondary report from our 52-week, double-blind, relapse prevention trial tested whether stable patients with schizophrenia who were taken off active drug treatment would experience greater improvements in long-term quality of life than those who were continued on antipsychotic treatment. On average, Heinrichs-Carpenter Quality-of-Life Scale total scores improved by 4.3 +/- 10.6 points during treatment with olanzapine (10-20 mg/d; n = 212), but decreased by 7.1 +/- 14.6 points during treatment with placebo (n = 92; P < 0.001). Mean Quality-of-Life Scale total scores worsened in both treatment groups for the relapsing patient subgroup, whereas for nonrelapsing patients, those treated with olanzapine had significantly improved mean Quality-of-Life Scale total scores compared with those given placebo. For a subset of nonrelapsing patients who were considered "nonexacerbating" on the basis of minimal non-clinically relevant increases in psychopathology, Quality-of-Life Scale total mean change was no better (P = 0.066) for those given placebo (2.7 +/- 11.0; n = 40) than those treated with olanzapine (5.7 +/- 8.9; n = 174). Path analysis indicated a direct effect of treatment (approximately 29%) on quality of life that was not accounted for by differential changes in psychopathology. In conclusion, stable patients with schizophrenia who were taken off active drug treatment experienced no greater improvements in long-term quality of life than those who were continued on antipsychotic treatment, even in the absence of psychotic symptoms.

Placebo-controlled study of the effects of atomoxetine on bladder control in children with nocturnal enuresis.

INTRODUCTION: Nocturnal enuresis is a condition in which children at least 5 years of age are incontinent of urine at night. Atomoxetine, a potent inhibitor of the presynaptic norepinephrine transporter, is used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study tested the hypothesis that atomoxetine will provide significant therapeutic benefit for nocturnal enuresis in patients with the diagnosis of nocturnal enuresis. METHODS: Atomoxetine's efficacy for improving nocturnal enuresis was studied in 87 pediatric subjects using an outpatient, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study. Efficacy was determined by measuring the mean number of dry nights per week using an intent-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome measure, the Dry Night Log-Parent Report (DNL-PR), a daily parent diary. RESULTS: Baseline and end point DNL-PR data were available from 42 atomoxetine-treated and 41 placebo-treated subjects. Atomoxetine increased the average number of dry nights per week by 1.47 compared with .60 for placebo (F = 7.06; df = (1, 75); p = 0.01). Fifteen atomoxetine-treated subjects (35.7%) had an increase of at least 2 dry nights per week compared with only 6 (14.6%) placebo-treated subjects (Fisher's exact test; p = 0.042). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, atomoxetine treatment was associated with a significant increase in dry nights in children with nocturnal enuresis.

Effects of atomoxetine and methylphenidate on sleep in children with ADHD.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: This study compared the effects of atomoxetine and methylphenidate on the sleep of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study also compared the efficacy of these medications for treating ADHD in these children. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. SETTING: Two sleep disorders centers in the United States; 1 in a private-practice setting and 1 in a hospital setting. PATIENTS: 85 children diagnosed with ADHD. INTERVENTIONS: Twice-daily atomoxetine and thrice-daily methylphenidate, each for approximately 7 weeks. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Relative to baseline, the actigraphy data indicated that methylphenidate increased sleep-onset latency significantly more than did atomoxetine (39.2 vs 12.1 minutes, p < .001). These results were consistent with the polysomnography data. Child diaries indicated that it was easier to get up in the morning, it took less time to fall asleep, and the children slept better with atomoxetine, compared with methylphenidate. Parents reported that it was less difficult getting their children up and getting them ready in the morning and that the children were less irritable, had less difficulty getting ready for bed, and had less difficulty falling asleep with atomoxetine, compared with methylphenidate. There were no significant differences between medications using the main measures of efficacy for ADHD treatment. Atomoxetine was superior on some secondary ADHD treatment-efficacy measures, based on parent reports. The only significant differences in treatment-emergent adverse events were greater incidence of decreased appetite and greater incidence of insomnia with methylphenidate. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving twice-daily atomoxetine had shorter sleep-onset latencies, relative to thrice-daily methylphenidate, based on objective actigraphy and polysomnography data. Although both medications decreased nighttime awakenings, the decrease was greater for methylphenidate.

Once-daily atomoxetine treatment for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including an assessment of evening and morning behavior: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Atomoxetine seems to be as effective for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) when the daily dose is administered once in the morning as when the dose is divided and administered in the morning and evening. In the present study, the efficacy of atomoxetine administered once daily among children with ADHD was assessed throughout the day, including the evening and early morning. Another goal was to determine how early in treatment it was possible to discern a specific effect of the drug on ADHD symptoms. METHODS: This study was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 12 outpatient sites in the United States. A total of 197 children, 6 to 12 years of age, who had been diagnosed as having ADHD, on the basis of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) criteria, were randomized to receive 8 weeks of treatment with atomoxetine or placebo, dosed once daily in the mornings. ADHD symptoms were assessed with parent and investigator rating scales. The primary outcome measure was the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator-Administered and Scored total score. Daily parent assessments of children's home behaviors in the evening and early morning were recorded with an electronic data entry system. This instrument measures 11 specific morning or evening activities, including getting up and out of bed, doing or completing homework, and sitting through dinner. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of the children enrolled were male, 69% met criteria for the combined subtype (both inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive symptoms), and the most common psychiatric comorbidity was oppositional defiant disorder (35%). Once-daily atomoxetine (final mean daily dose of 1.3 mg/kg) was significantly more effective than placebo in treating core symptoms of ADHD. Mean reductions in the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator-Administered and Scored total score were significantly greater for patients randomized to atomoxetine, beginning at the first visit after the initiation of treatment and continuing at all subsequent visits. Both inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive symptom clusters were significantly reduced with atomoxetine, compared with placebo. With continued treatment and dose titrations, core symptoms of ADHD continued to decrease throughout the 8-week study. Mean reductions in the daily parent assessment total scores for patients randomized to atomoxetine were superior during the first week, beginning with the first day of dosing, and were also superior at endpoint. Efficacy outcomes for the evening hours for atomoxetine-treated patients were superior to those for placebo-treated patients, as assessed with 2 different assessment scales. Decreases in the daily parent assessment morning subscores at endpoint showed a significant reduction in symptoms that lasted into the mornings. Rates of discontinuations attributable to adverse events were <5% for both groups. Adverse events reported significantly more frequently with atomoxetine were decreased appetite, somnolence, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Among children 6 to 12 of age who had been diagnosed as having ADHD, once-daily administration of atomoxetine in the morning provided safe, rapid, continuous, symptom relief that lasted not only into the evening hours but also into the morning hours. Atomoxetine treatment was safe and well tolerated.

Comparison of risperidone and olanzapine in the control of negative symptoms of chronic schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders in patients aged 50 to 65 years.

BACKGROUND: This analysis compares the efficacy of risperidone and olanzapine in controlling negative and positive symptoms of chronic psychosis in older patients. METHOD: Post hoc assessments were made in a subset of risperidone-treated (N = 19) and olanzapine-treated (N = 20) older patients (aged 50 to 65 years) from a large international, multicenter, parallel, double-blind, 28-week study of patients aged 18 to 65 years (N = 339) randomly assigned to receive risperidone (4-12 mg/day) or olanzapine (10-20 mg/day). Assessments were made using repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS: At both 8 weeks and 28 weeks, the magnitude of changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) positive symptom subscale scores did not differ between treatment groups (8 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -6.8, p = .866; 28 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -7.0; p = .804). However, by the 8-week timepoint, olanzapine had reduced PANSS negative subscale scores significantly more than risperidone (-8.8 vs. -4.9, p = .032). By the 28-week endpoint, olanzapine had continued to maintain significantly greater reduction in baseline-to-endpoint PANSS negative scores (-8.1 vs. -3.5, p = .032) and led to significantly greater reduction in scores on the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) dimensions of affective flattening (-5.2 vs. -0.6, p = .033) and alogia (-3.8 vs. -0.3, p = .007). Patients in the olanzapine treatment group also demonstrated numerically greater reduction of both SANS summary (-3.7 vs. -1.0, p = .078) and SANS composite scores (-14.1 vs. -4.1, p = .075). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that, in older patients with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, risperidone and olanzapine have approximately equal efficacy in controlling positive symptoms. However, olanzapine appears to be more efficacious in maintaining control over negative symptoms.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine in the prevention of psychotic relapse.

Sustained response to antipsychotic therapy is an important outcome measure for patients with psychotic disorders. Placebo control in studies of relapse prevention contributes valuable information yet provokes much debate. This study, using placebo as a control, evaluated olanzapine's efficacy in preventing a psychotic relapse. Participants were stable minimally symptomatic outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The study included 4 phases: (1) 4-day to 9-day screening/evaluation (N = 583), (2) 6-week conversion to open-label olanzapine (N = 493; 10-20 mg/d), (3) 8-week stabilization on olanzapine (N = 458; 10-20 mg/d), and (4) 52-week randomized (2:1), double-blind maintenance with olanzapine (N = 224; 10-20 mg/d) or placebo (N = 102). Primary relapse criteria were clinically significant changes in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) positive item cluster or rehospitalization due to positive symptoms. Statistical methodology allowed sequential real-time estimation of efficacy across blinded treatment groups and multiple interim analyses, which permitted study termination when efficacy was significantly different between treatments. A significant between-treatment difference emerged 210 days after first patient randomization to double-blind treatment. Thus, 151 (46.3%) of the randomized patients were discontinued early and 34 (10.4%) of the planned patient enrollment were not required. The olanzapine group had a significantly longer time to relapse (P < 0.0001) than the placebo group. The 6-month cumulative estimated relapse rate (Kaplan-Meier) was 5.5% for olanzapine-treated patients versus 55.2% for placebo-treated patients. The design of this study enabled appropriate statistical testing of the primary hypothesis while minimizing exposure of patients to a less effective treatment than olanzapine. In remitted stabilized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, olanzapine demonstrated a positive benefit-to-risk profile in relapse prevention.

Olanzapine in the treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies in elderly patients demonstrate antipsychotic efficacy and favorable safety profiles for olanzapine. We report results from two placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic drug-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Patients were treated with olanzapine or placebo for 4 weeks while dopamimetic therapy was held constant. Olanzapine was initiated at 2.5 mg/day, with 2.5-mg/day increases allowed every 3 to 4 days up to the maximum dose of 15 mg/day. RESULTS: Olanzapine patients showed significant improvements from baseline on positive symptoms and most efficacy measures, but no significant treatment-group differences were observed. Olanzapine performed significantly worse than placebo in both studies on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) total, Motor, and Activities of Daily Living scales, but not the UPDRS Tremor item or Complications scores. Corrected QT interval, vital signs, and body weight were not significantly different from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These findings did not demonstrate superior efficacy of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in PD. The initial dose-titration schedule and mild baseline levels of psychosis may account for these findings. Future studies involving gradual dose titration are needed to explore further olanzapine's optimum use for patients with PD with treatment-related psychosis.