The placebo response in pain and depression: in search of a common pathway.

The placebo effect has been extensively studied in many disease states, some of the most notable being pain and depression. Utilizing a Medline search, studies were identified that reported on areas of the brain shown to be involved in either placebo analgesia or mood response. This paper presents a distillation of this research, in an effort to identify a common "placebo pathway" between mood and pain. Placebo-related responses to both analgesia and relief from depression were reported to be associated with an increase in activity in the frontal cortex and a decrease in activity in the thalamus.

Safety and efficacy of duloxetine in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in older patients.

OBJECTIVE: We present a post-hoc analysis of the safety and efficacy of duloxetine, a selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, for treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in older patients. METHODS: Data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with DPNP were pooled and stratified by age (<65, >or=65 years). Patients were randomized to duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg once-daily, 60 mg twice-daily, or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 52-week extension phase (re-randomization to routine care or DLX 120 mg/day). Intent-to-treat analyses were used for safety and efficacy assessment. RESULTS: In the acute phase, overall TEAE rates did not differ significantly by age. A greater percentage of older patients discontinued due to TEAEs (P<0.001), regardless of treatment group. Duloxetine improved weekly mean 24-hour average pain scores versus placebo in both age groups (P<0.01). In the extension phase, a significant therapy-by-age interaction (P<0.05) was observed in overall TEAE rate; with routine care, 86.6% of older patients had >or=1 TEAE versus 74.6% of younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although TEAEs more frequently lead to discontinuation in older patients, duloxetine was well tolerated and efficacious for treatment of DPNP regardless of age. These data suggest duloxetine may be beneficial for treatment of DPNP in patients>or=65.

Safety and tolerability of duloxetine treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain between patients with and without cardiovascular conditions.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are predisposed to cardiovascular (CV) disease and other chronic medical conditions. We compared the safety of duloxetine in patients with (CV-positive) and without (CV-negative) historical/comorbid cardiovascular conditions at study entry. METHODS: Data were pooled from three double-blind studies in which patients (age > or =18 years) with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) were randomized to 12 weeks of duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg qd (n=344), 60 mg bid (n=341), or placebo (PBO, n=339). Safety assessments included discontinuation rates, spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), changes in vital signs, and changes in lab analytes. RESULTS: Mean age of CV-positive patients (n=762) vs. CV-negative patients (n=262) was 61.1 vs. 56.1 years. The most common historical or comorbid CV conditions were hypertension, coronary artery disease, and myocardial infarction. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher for DLX than for PBO in both CV-positive and CV-negative patients (13.5% DLX, 6.0% PBO, and 14.3% DLX, 3.4% PBO, respectively). Rates of CV-related TEAEs in CV-positive (8.4% DLX; 9.9% PBO) and CV-negative (8.6% DLX; 5.7% PBO) patients were similar (P>.1). Mean changes in blood pressure for each DLX dose vs. PBO between CV-positive and CV-negative patients were not statistically significant (P>.1), nor were sustained hypertension rates between CV-positive (2.4% DLX; 2.8% PBO) and CV-negative (2.9% DLX; 4.7% PBO) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, the safety of duloxetine in patients with DPNP was not found to be significantly different between patients with and without historical or comorbid CV conditions.

Hepatic effects of duloxetine-III: analysis of hepatic events using external data sources.

OBJECTIVE: Present results from two hepatic safety studies conducted within 20 months after duloxetine launch. METHODS: Signal detection based on spontaneous reports to the FDA adverse event reporting system (AERS) and on a comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the i3 Drug Safety Aperio claims database, using measures of disproportionality and incidence rate ratio, respectively. RESULTS: In AERS all antidepressants had some degree of association with hepatic injury, in that at least one hepatic event was disproportionately represented for each drug. Signals were detected for duloxetine cases analyzed against full and antidepressant-only backgrounds. These signals corresponded to labeled events or events investigated during ongoing surveillance. Using a duloxetine fatal-case series, disproportional representation of clinically serious events was detected relative to both backgrounds, but the signals were refuted upon independent expert panel case review. The Aperio study showed no difference in hepatic injury between duloxetine and venlafaxine initiators after proper control for baseline risks, suggesting differential prescribing of duloxetine, perhaps preferentially as second-line therapy in some initiators. CONCLUSIONS: No new signals were identified in Aperio. New signals detected through AERS were refuted upon independently conducted case-level investigation. Hepatic signals arising from spontaneously reported data must be clarified through subsequent systematic investigation.

Answers to the most common questions about the hepatic safety profile of duloxetine.

Since its first FDA approval in 2004, duloxetine has been taken by more than 5 million patients. A small fraction of patients treated with duloxetine develop elevations in liver enzymes, which generally resolve spontaneously without any change in treatment. Very rare cases (estimated 1-2 per 100,000 exposures) of idiosyncratic hepatic toxicity have been reported in patients taking duloxetine, particularly in those with substantial alcohol use and/or preexisting liver disease. In the context of more than 23,000 patients exposed during clinical trials, and more than 1.5 million patient years of exposure subsequent to product launch, the hepatic risk after exposure to duloxetine appears to be within the range identified for other therapeutic agents. Therefore, it does not warrant hepatic enzyme monitoring. As with any medication, physicians should follow prescribing guidelines and educate patients on the risks and benefits of duloxetine.

Hepatic events associated with atomoxetine treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes and assesses potential hepatobiliary events related to atomoxetine therapy, as reported in clinical trials and as spontaneous adverse event reports post-launch in 2002. METHODS: Case reports that contained potential hepatobiliary events were identified by a computerized search of the Eli Lilly and Company atomoxetine spontaneous adverse events and clinical trials databases. All cases were reviewed by at least two company physicians, one with expertise in hepatology, to determine the relevance of the information in respect of potential liver toxicity. RESULTS: Of 7961 paediatric and adult patients treated with atomoxetine in clinical trials, 41 were identified as having hepatobiliary events requiring additional analysis. Most of these events were mild increases in ALT and AST levels. None of these cases met Hy's rule criteria or progressed to liver failure. During the 4 years after market launch, 351 spontaneous reports of adverse events were related to the liver, of which 69 had other explanations unrelated to atomoxetine. Of the remaining 282 cases, 133 contained possible confounding factors (and were deemed to be possibly related), 146 presented too little information to assess, and three suggested atomoxetine as a probable cause of liver injuries. One of the three had a positive rechallenge. All three patients recovered after discontinuation of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Since the launch of atomoxetine therapy, three spontaneously reported cases of reversible drug-induced liver injury were deemed probably related to it. Atomoxetine should be discontinued in patients with jaundice or laboratory evidence of liver injury and should not be restarted.

Duloxetine for the treatment of fibromyalgia in women: pooled results from two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy (in particular, in pain, functional impairment, and quality of life) and safety and tolerability (incidence of adverse events, discontinuation rates, changes in laboratory findings, and vital signs) of duloxetine in female patients with fibromyalgia. METHODS: Data were pooled from two placebo-controlled clinical trials of similar design (randomized, 12-week, and double-blind), comparing duloxetine 60 mg a day (q.d.) or 60 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (n = 326) with placebo (n = 212), in women who met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for primary fibromyalgia. RESULTS: Compared with the patients receiving placebo, duloxetine-treated female patients demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity score and in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total score, beginning at week 1 and continuing through week 12 (p < 0.001). Duloxetine was superior to placebo on all efficacy measures, including mean tender point threshold, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and average interference from pain scores. The duloxetine-treated group was superior to placebo on all quality of life and functional measures, including each domain of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36). A direct treatment effect of duloxetine on pain reduction was demonstrated and shown to be independent of secondary improvement in mood (based on BPI average pain score). Significantly more duloxetine-treated patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (296 [90.8%] duloxetine-treated and 165 [77.8%] placebo-treated, p < 0.001). Rates of serious adverse events were similar between duloxetine-treated and placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled results of these studies demonstrate that duloxetine is a safe and efficacious treatment for both the pain and functional impairment associated with fibromyalgia in female patients, while significantly improving quality of life.

An open-label 52-week clinical extension comparing duloxetine with routine care in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of duloxetine at a fixed-dose of 60 mg twice daily (BID) for up to 52 weeks, and compare duloxetine with routine care in the management of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS: Patients who completed a 13-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled acute therapy period were randomly reassigned in a 2:1 ratio to therapy with duloxetine 60 mg BID (N = 197) or routine care (N = 96) for an additional 52 weeks. PATIENTS: The trial included outpatients > or =18 years of age diagnosed with moderate to severe DPNP caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Fourteen patients discontinued due to adverse events or death (11 [5.6%] duloxetine- and 3 [3.1%] routine care-treated patients). There were no significant therapy-group differences observed for patients with >/=1 serious adverse event. In total, 110 (55.8%) duloxetine- and 47 (49%) routine care-treated patients had > or =1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The TEAE with a significant therapy-group difference, with patients in the duloxetine therapy group experiencing a higher percentage of events, was asthenia (11 [5.6%] duloxetine- vs no routine care-treated patients). Duloxetine did not appear to adversely affect lipid profiles, or nerve or eye function. There were no significant therapy-group differences observed in mean change in systolic blood pressure, weight, or electrocardiogram parameters. Significant therapy-group differences were observed in favor of duloxetine in the SF-36 physical component summary score, and subscale scores of physical functioning, bodily pain, mental health, and vitality. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide support for the use of duloxetine in the long-term management of DPNP.

Seizure risk in patients with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder treated with atomoxetine.

The comorbidity of seizures, epilepsy, and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prompted the examination of whether atomoxetine use for ADHD is associated with an increased risk of seizures. Seizures and seizure-related symptoms were reviewed from two independent Eli Lilly and Company databases: the atomoxetine clinical trials database and the atomoxetine postmarketing spontaneous adverse event database. Review of clinical trial data indicated that the crude incidence rates of seizure adverse events were between 0.1 and 0.2%, and were not significantly different between atomoxetine, placebo, and methylphenidate. Only 2% of the postmarketing spontaneous reports of seizure events were classified as having no clear contributing or confounding factors, and the reporting rate (8 per 100 000 patients exposed) was within the expected range of population-based incidence. Although children with ADHD are increasingly recognized as being at an elevated risk for seizures, treatment of ADHD symptoms with atomoxetine does not appear to elevate this risk further. The shared vulnerability between ADHD and seizure activity should be taken into account when making treatment decisions for populations of children with epilepsy and children with ADHD.

Duloxetine in the long-term management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: An open-label, 52-week extension of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine hydrochloride, a selective serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake inhibitor, is relatively balanced in its affinity for both 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibition and is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription drug for the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether management of DPNP with duloxetine interferes with the treatment of diabetes. It also examined the tolerability of long-term exposure to duloxetine with regard to the progression of diabetic complications, and assessed the impact of DPNP management with duloxetine versus routine care. METHODS: This was a 52-week, multicenter, re-randomized, open-label extension of a parallel, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, acute (12-week) study. Patients who completed the duloxetine or placebo acute treatment period were randomly reassigned in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with duloxetine 60 mg BID or routine care for an additional 52 weeks. The study included male and female outpatients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of DPNP caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Over the course of the 52-week study, visits were scheduled on the following weeks (of the extension phase of the study): 1 (via phone only), 2, 4, 8, 12, 20, 28, 40, and 52. Tolerability was assessed by review and analyses of discontinuation rates, adverse events (AEs), laboratory data, vital signs, electrocardiographic results, concomitant medications, and diabetic complications. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that appeared during therapy (were not present at baseline) or were exacerbated during treatment. Data on AEs and concomitant medications were collected at every visit. Data on blood pressure, heart rate, and significant hypoglycemic events were collected at every visit starting from week 2. Fasting clinical chemistry and electrolyte group laboratory assessments were done at every visit, starting from week 4. Electrocardiographic data was collected at weeks 4 and 52, and glycosylated hemoglobin and lipid profile data were collected at weeks 20 and 52. Hematology and urinalysis laboratory assessments and diabetic complication assessments were done at week 52. All safety data was assessed in cases of early discontinuation. Treatment differences on quality of life (QOL) were compared using the Short Form-36 Health Status Survey (SF-36) and the EQ-5D instrument of the European Health-Related Quality of Life Measures. This was assessed at the last visit or at early discontinuation. RESULTS: The open-label extension-phase study included 337 patients (duloxetine, n = 222; routine care, n = 115). For the duloxetine group, mean age was 60.2 years, 61.3% were male, and 78.4% were white. For the routine-care group, mean age was 58.9 years, 60.0% were male, and 74.8% were white. Mean weight was 95.3 kg for both groups. None of the TEAEs occurred significantly more often in the duloxetine-treated group than in the routine-care-treated group. No TEAEs were reported by >10% of patients in the duloxetine group. The TEAEs reported by >10% of patients in the routine-care group included dizziness (11.3%), somnolence (13.0%), headache (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No significant differences were found between treatment groups in the occurrence of serious AEs or in the number of patients discontinuing because of AEs. Duloxetine was significantly better than routine care on the bodily pain subscale of the SF-36 (mean change: 1.5 vs -4.1; P= 0.021) and on the EQ-5D (mean change: -0.00 vs -0.09; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over 52 weeks of follow-up, treatment of these diabetic patients with duloxetine for peripheral neuropathic pain was associated with outcomes similar to, or significantly better than, that of routine care on most measures of tolerability, diabetic complications, and QOL.

A double-blind, randomized multicenter trial comparing duloxetine with placebo in the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE: Assess efficacy and safety of duloxetine, a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on the reduction of pain severity, in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). METHODS: This was a multicenter, parallel, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 348 patients with pain due to peripheral neuropathy caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients (N = 116 per group) were randomly assigned to receive duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD), duloxetine 60 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo, for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the weekly mean score of 24-hour average pain severity evaluated on an 11-point Likert scale. Secondary outcome measures and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: Compared with placebo-treated patients, both duloxetine-treated groups improved significantly more (P < 0.001) on the 24-hour average pain score. Duloxetine demonstrated superiority to placebo in all secondary analyses of the primary efficacy measure. A significant treatment effect for duloxetine was observed in most secondary measures for pain. Discontinuations due to adverse events were more frequent in the duloxetine 60 mg BID- (12.1%) versus the placebo- (2.6%) treated group. Duloxetine showed no adverse effects on diabetic control, and both doses were safely administered and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical trial, duloxetine 60 mg QD and duloxetine 60 mg BID were effective and safe in the management of DPNP.

Safety and adverse event profile of duloxetine.

Duloxetine is the first relatively balanced serotonin and noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor to be widely available for three indications including: major depressive disorder, peripheral diabetic neuropathic pain and female stress urinary incontinence, although it is not currently approved for all indications in all countries. Generally, duloxetine is safe and well-tolerated across indications, with few reported serious side effects. Common adverse events are consistent with the pharmacology of the molecule and are mainly referable to the gastrointestinal and the nervous systems. The studied dose range is up to 400 mg/day (administered 200 mg b.i.d) but the maximum dose approved for marketing is 120 mg/day (administered 60 mg b.i.d). Duloxetine is eliminated (half-life = 12.1 hours) primarily in the urine after extensive hepatic metabolism by multiple oxidative pathways, methylation and conjugation. Duloxetine would not be expected to cause clinically significant inhibition of the metabolic clearance of drugs metabolised by P450 (CYP)3A, (CYP)1A2, (CYP)2C9, or (CYP)2C19, but would be expected to cause some inhibition of CYP 2D6. Duloxetine should not be used in combination CYP 1A2 inhibitors or nonselective, irreversible monoamine oxidase inhibitors. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of some of the most important information related to safety and tolerability of duloxetine.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine in the treatment of women with fibromyalgia with or without major depressive disorder.

This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine, a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, in 354 female patients with primary fibromyalgia, with or without current major depressive disorder. Patients (90% Caucasian; mean age, 49.6 years; 26% with current major depressive disorder) received duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD) (N=118), duloxetine 60 mg twice daily (BID) (N=116), or placebo (N=120). The primary outcome was the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity score. Response to treatment was defined as >or=30% reduction in this score. Compared with placebo, both duloxetine-treated groups improved significantly more (P<0.001) on the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity score. A significantly higher percentage of duloxetine-treated patients had a decrease of >or=30% in this score (duloxetine 60 mg QD (55%; P<0.001); duloxetine 60 mg BID (54%; P=0.002); placebo (33%)). The treatment effect of duloxetine on pain reduction was independent of the effect on mood and the presence of major depressive disorder. Compared with patients on placebo, patients treated with duloxetine 60 mg QD or duloxetine 60 mg BID had significantly greater improvement in remaining Brief Pain Inventory pain severity and interference scores, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and several quality-of-life measures. Both doses of duloxetine were safely administered and well tolerated. In conclusion, both duloxetine 60 mg QD and duloxetine 60 mg BID were effective and safe in the treatment of fibromyalgia in female patients with or without major depressive disorder.

Detecting treatment emergent adverse events in clinical trials : a comparison of spontaneously reported and solicited collection methods.

BACKGROUND: The collection of adverse event data is an important component of clinical trials, but it is not clear whether solicited or unsolicited collection methods are better at distinguishing drug effects from the effects of placebo. The objective of this analysis is to compare the reporting rates and the ability to detect drug-placebo differences with spontaneous versus solicited adverse event collection methods. METHODS: Adverse events were collected by spontaneous (unsolicited) reporting and by structured questionnaires in three randomised, double-blind clinical trials. For both spontaneous and solicited adverse event collection methods, a drug/placebo (D/P) reporting ratio was computed by dividing the reporting rate for the experimental drug by the reporting rate for placebo for each adverse event. An index (Sp-So index) was calculated by dividing the spontaneous D/P ratio by the solicited D/P ratio. A number >1.0 indicates that the spontaneous adverse event collection method is more effective in distinguishing the drug from placebo and a number <1.0 suggests that the solicited adverse event collection method is more effective in distinguishing the drug from placebo. RESULTS: Reporting rates were greater when events were solicited than when the spontaneous reporting approach was used. The Sp-So index was >1.0 for 22 of the 29 (75.9%) events examined, suggesting that spontaneous collection of adverse events is more effective in distinguishing drug effect from placebo than the solicited approach. However, more statistically significant differences between drug and placebo were detected by the solicited method (nine events) than the spontaneous method (five events). This is due, in part, to the fact that differences in the percentages of adverse events between drug and placebo (rather than ratios of event rates) were more often greater when the solicited approach was used. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, adverse events collected by solicitation leads to higher reporting rates. However, it is not clear that solicitation of events leads to greater ability to detect drug-placebo differences. By using a ratio to assess drug-placebo differences, spontaneous reporting provided larger drug-placebo differences more often than solicitation.

QT correction methods in children and adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate determination of the QTc interval has become increasingly important in the assessment of a drug's ability to prolong cardiac repolarization. Previous work suggests the most appropriate correction formula for adults is QTc=QT/RR0.40, but little on correction methods for children and adolescents has been published. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this study, ECG data were obtained from a meta-analysis of seven clinical trials for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) involving 2,288 children and adolescents. The most appropriate formula for children and adolescents included in this database was found to be QTc=QT/RR0.38. Adjustments of the correction factor specifically for males and females of different ages also are reported. CONCLUSION: QT correction methods developed for adults do not apply to children. As accurate QTc determination plays a larger role in assessing a drug's potential to retard repolarization, use of age- and gender-specific correction formulas becomes more important.

Safety and side effect profile of fluoxetine.

Fluoxetine was the first selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor to be widely available for treatment of depression and numerous other neuropsychiatric disorders. Its attributes have been described in numerous scientific papers, and it has been the subject of a considerable volume of lay press. Fluoxetine is generally safe and well-tolerated. Common adverse events reported with the recommended dose of 20 mg/day are referable to the gastrointestinal system and the nervous system. The approved dose range is up to 80 mg/day, and when higher doses are used, adverse events are more common. The long half-life of fluoxetine and its active metabolite essentially preclude a withdrawal phenomenon. It is an inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 and other CYP enzymes, which increases the potential for drug interactions. However, most of these are not clinically important. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of some of the most important information related to safety and side effects of this drug.

Changes in symptoms and adverse events after discontinuation of atomoxetine in children and adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a prospective, placebo-controlled assessment.

Drugs that affect neurotransmitter release can induce changes in neuroregulation during chronic administration. Thus, in addition to recurrence of symptoms of the illness, discontinuation of treatment can be associated with clinical signs and symptoms related to these changes. Atomoxetine, a new drug approved in the United States for treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is associated with blockade of the presynaptic norepinephrine transporter. Because treatment of ADHD typically involves chronic treatment, the potential for production of a discontinuation syndrome as well as recurrence of symptoms upon drug discontinuation were assessed as part of the clinical development process. The effects of discontinuation of atomoxetine were assessed in children and adults with ADHD following 9 to 10 weeks of continuous therapy in 4 large studies. Symptoms of ADHD worsened following drug discontinuation but did not return to pretreatment levels. The incidence of discontinuation-emergent adverse events was low and there were no statistically significant differences between the patients abruptly discontinuing from atomoxetine and those continuing on placebo. Discontinuation of atomoxetine did not result in the development of an acute discontinuation syndrome and was well tolerated. It appears that atomoxetine may be discontinued without risk for symptom rebound or discontinuation-emergent adverse effects. Tapering of doses is not necessary when atomoxetine is discontinued.

Cardiovascular effects of atomoxetine in children, adolescents, and adults.

BACKGROUND: Atomoxetine is a highly specific presynaptic inhibitor of the noradrenaline (norepinephrine) transporter that was recently approved in the US for the treatment of patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, including abnormalities in heart rate, blood pressure, or cardiac rhythm have been associated with several noradrenergic medications. OBJECTIVE: To further elucidate the magnitude and impact of blood pressure and pulse elevations in patients taking atomoxetine. STUDY DESIGN: Short-term cardiovascular safety in children, adolescents, and adults with ADHD was assessed in five randomised, double-blind trials (duration up to 10 weeks) with atomoxetine (n = 612) or placebo (n = 474). Long-term cardiovascular safety in children and adolescents (n = 169) was assessed in patients who entered an open-label extension or a blinded continuation following short-term treatment. METHODS: Adverse events, blood pressure, sitting pulse, and electrocardiograms (ECGs) were collected throughout the trials. QT intervals were corrected for heart rate by a data-specific correction factor (QTcD; derived from baseline ECGs) as well as standard methods. RESULTS: Atomoxetine treatment was associated with small but statistically significant increases in mean systolic blood pressure in adults and diastolic blood pressure in children and adolescents. Mean pulse rate increased for all atomoxetine treatment groups. The increases in blood pressure and pulse tended to occur early in therapy, stabilised, and returned toward baseline upon drug discontinuation. There was no significant difference between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups in change in QTcD interval for all study populations. Palpitations in the adult patient population were the only significant cardiovascular adverse event (p = 0.037) occurring more frequently in the atomoxetine treatment group (3.7%) than in the placebo group (0.8%). Discontinuations due to cardiovascular-related events were very uncommon in the adult group, and did not occur in the child/adolescent group. CONCLUSION: While atomoxetine has noradrenergic activity, increases in pulse and blood pressure were small and of little, if any, clinical significance. Atomoxetine was not associated with QT interval prolongation. Cardiovascular effects of atomoxetine were minimal, and atomoxetine was well tolerated in short- and long-term studies.