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

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

Empirically Defining Trajectories of Late-Life Cognitive and Functional Decline.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with variable cognitive and functional decline, and it is difficult to predict who will develop the disease and how they will progress. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study aimed to define latent classes from participants in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database who had similar growth patterns of both cognitive and functional change using Growth Mixture Modeling (GMM), identify characteristics associated with those trajectories, and develop a decision tree using clinical predictors to determine which trajectory, as determined by GMM, individuals will most likely follow. METHODS: We used ADNI early mild cognitive impairment (EMCI), late MCI (LMCI), AD dementia, and healthy control (HC) participants with known amyloid-ß status and follow-up assessments on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale or the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) up to 24 months postbaseline. GMM defined trajectories. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) used certain baseline variables to predict likely trajectory path. RESULTS: GMM identified three trajectory classes (C): C1 (n = 162, 13.6%) highest baseline impairment and steepest pattern of cognitive/functional decline; C3 (n = 819, 68.7%) lowest baseline impairment and minimal change on both; C2 (n = 211, 17.7%) intermediate pattern, worsening on both, but less steep than C1. C3 had fewer amyloid- or apolipoprotein-E ɛ4 (APOE4) positive and more healthy controls (HC) or EMCI cases. CART analysis identified two decision nodes using the FAQ to predict likely class with 82.3% estimated accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive/functional change followed three trajectories with greater baseline impairment and amyloid and APOE4 positivity associated with greater progression. FAQ may predict trajectory class.

Relationship of Hippocampal Volume to Amyloid Burden across Diagnostic Stages of Alzheimer's Disease.

AIMS: To assess how hippocampal volume (HV) from volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (vMRI) is related to the amyloid status at different stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its relevance to patient care. METHODS: We evaluated the ability of HV to predict the florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) amyloid positive/negative status by group in healthy controls (HC, n = 170) and early/late mild cognitive impairment (EMCI, n = 252; LMCI, n = 136), and AD dementia (n = 75) subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative Grand Opportunity (ADNI-GO) and ADNI2. Logistic regression analyses, including elastic net classification modeling with 10-fold cross-validation, were used with age and education as covariates. RESULTS: HV predicted amyloid status only in LMCI using either logistic regression [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.71, p < 0.001] or elastic net classification modeling [positive predictive value (PPV) = 72.7%]. In EMCI, age (AUC = 0.70, p < 0.0001) and age and/or education (PPV = 63.1%), but not HV, predicted amyloid status. CONCLUSION: Using clinical neuroimaging, HV predicted amyloid status only in LMCI, suggesting that HV is not a biomarker surrogate for amyloid PET in clinical applications across the full diagnostic spectrum.

Florbetapir positron emission tomography and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the relationship between florbetapir-F18 positron emission tomography (FBP PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. METHODS: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-Grand Opportunity and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 (GO/2) healthy control (HC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia subjects with clinical measures and CSF collected ±90 days of FBP PET data were analyzed using correlation and logistic regression. RESULTS: In HC and MCI subjects, FBP PET anterior and posterior cingulate and composite standard uptake value ratios correlated with CSF amyloid beta (Aß1-42) and tau/Aß1-42 ratios. Using logistic regression, Aß1-42, total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau181P (p-tau), and FBP PET composite each differentiated HC versus AD. Aß1-42 and t-tau distinguished MCI versus AD, without additional contribution by FBP PET. Total tau and p-tau added discriminative power to FBP PET when classifying HC versus AD. CONCLUSION: Based on cross-sectional diagnostic groups, both amyloid and tau measures distinguish healthy from demented subjects. Longitudinal analyses are needed.

Predictors of relapse or recurrence in bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Bipolar disorder represents a major public health concern and, despite treatment, is characterized by recurring episodes of mania, depression, or mixed states. Prevention of relapse or recurrence is a primary treatment objective in the management of the disorder. The objective of the current study was to identify predictors of relapse/recurrence in patients with bipolar I disorder treated with olanzapine, lithium, divalproex, or olanzapine plus divalproex/lithium. METHODS: Data from four clinical trials studying the efficacy of olanzapine compared to placebo and active comparators (lithium, divalproex, olanzapine plus divalproex/lithium) for bipolar I disorder were pooled for this analysis. Patients achieving remission after pharmacological treatment and entering randomized double-blind maintenance phase for 44 to 72 weeks were included. Cox Proportional Hazard models and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine predictors of relapse/recurrence for the pooled data and within each treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 929 patients meeting the criteria for remission and followed by maintenance treatment were included in this analysis, and 427 patients (46.0%) experienced symptomatic relapse/recurrence during the follow-up period. A 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) total score<4, gender, rapid cycling and treatment emerged as significant predictors of relapse/recurrence and may be generalized to treatment with olanzapine and to some extent to treatment with lithium and divalproex. The results on treatment-specific predictors of relapse/recurrence are considered to be exploratory and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: The major findings from this study suggest that a HAMD-21 total score<4 may be a better predictor of maintenance of remission in bipolar I patients than HAMD-21 total score<8. The prophylactic effect of olanzapine, lithium, divalproex, olanzapine plus divalproex or lithium, and placebo was assessed and baseline predictors of relapse/recurrence were identified.

Early weight gain as a predictor of substantial weight gain with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: an analysis of 2 adult studies in treatment-resistant depression.

Weight gain during olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) therapy is very common. We examined early (at 2 weeks) weight gain as a predictor of later (at 26 weeks) substantial weight gain in patients with treatment-resistant depression during OFC pharmacotherapy. Data were analyzed from 2 studies (Study 1 and Study 2)-each with an acute, double-blind phase and an open-label phase-in patients who completed 26 weeks of open-label treatment (N = 306). Mean patient age was 46 years; the majority was female and white. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were examined using early weight gain of 2 kg or more as a predictor of 10 kg or more substantial weight gain. Sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity for Study 1 (n = 73) were 33% and 71%, respectively; PPV and NPV were 23% and 80%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for Study 2 (n = 233) were 52% and 70%, respectively; PPV and NPV were 31% and 85%, respectively. Overall, in the 2 trials analyzed, for patients who did not gain 2 kg or more (2.54 lb) in the first 2 weeks of OFC treatment, the observed frequency was 16.3% for gaining 10 kg or more at 26 weeks. Compared to those with early weight gain, patients without early weight gain were less likely to have substantial weight gain after OFC treatment. Additional research is needed to further explore the predictive power of early weight gain for subsequent substantial weight gain in patients with treatment-resistant depression treated with OFC.

Early symptom change and prediction of subsequent remission with olanzapine augmentation in divalproex-resistant bipolar mixed episodes.

Potential predictors of remission in mixed bipolar I disorder were identified using early Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) improvement criteria in divalproex-resistant patients randomized to olanzapine augmentation (olanzapine + divalproex; N = 101) in a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. In a post-hoc analysis, receiver operating characteristics of 1-point decreases in the CGI-S total score after 2, 4, 7, and 14 days were examined as predictors of endpoint (Week 6 or last observation) remission of depression and/or mania as defined by 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≤8. Based on a 1-point improvement in CGI-S as a predictor of remission, all odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were statistically significant for depression or mania remission criteria. ORs for mixed symptom remission with a decrease ≥1 in CGI-S scores at Day 2 for olanzapine augmentation were (6.727; CI: 2.382, 18.997; p < .001) with negative predictive value = 89.5% and positive predictive value = 44.2%. Changes in HDRS-21 and YMRS individual item scores after 2 days of augmentation as predictors of endpoint remission identified that decreases in HDRS-21 symptom item scores (early, middle, and/or late insomnia; paranoid; agitation; and somatic/gastrointestinal) predicted depressive symptom remission at endpoint, and decreases in YMRS item scores (language-thought disorder and irritability) were associated with manic symptom remission at endpoint. Because remission with augmentation therapy may occur in as few as one in ten individuals who lack very early symptom reduction, lack of early improvement may indicate a need to expediently reassess treatment strategy.

Relationship between African-American or Caucasian origin and outcomes in the olanzapine treatment of acute mania: a pooled analysis of three adult studies conducted in the United States of America.

The aim of this study was to explore the role of ethnic origin in the treatment of acute bipolar mania. Treatment outcomes were studied in a post-hoc analysis of African-American (AA, n=41) and Caucasian (CA, n=190) adults treated with olanzapine in three studies conducted in the United States of America. Baseline demographics were similar except that the AA cohort had fewer women compared with the CA cohort (37 vs. 58%; P=0.01). Daily mean modal olanzapine dose and study discontinuation rate for AA and CA were: 16.2 mg vs. 16.6 mg and 41.5 vs. 25.3% (P=0.03), respectively. There were four (23.5% of discontinuers) and 19 (39.6% of discontinuers, P=0.14) discontinuations because of a poor response in the AA and CA groups, respectively. Drug exposure for the AA cohort was 18.7 days and that of the CA cohort was 19.3 days. Both cohorts showed similar symptom improvements, and safety outcomes were not statistically significantly different except for the following treatment-emergent adverse event frequencies for AA and CA cohorts, respectively: agitation (24.4 vs. 10.5%, P=0.04); dysmenorrhoea (20.0 vs. 3.6%, P=0.04); and dizziness postural (7.3 vs. 1.1%, P=0.04). Although study findings [limited by a smaller (18% of total population) AA cohort] need replication, they suggest that while many outcomes were similar in both cohorts, clinicians could benefit from the awareness of factors in the AA population that possibly influence study discontinuation rates, treatment-emergent adverse event reporting, and participation by sex.

Symptoms predicting remission after divalproex augmentation with olanzapine in partially nonresponsive patients experiencing mixed bipolar I episode: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Rating scale items in a 6-week clinical trial of olanzapine versus placebo augmentation in patients with mixed bipolar disorder partially nonresponsive to ≥14 days of divalproex monotherapy were analyzed to characterize symptom patterns that could predict remission. At baseline, the two treatment groups were similar. FINDINGS: Factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed post hoc on baseline items of the 21-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Backwards-elimination logistic regression ascertained factors predictive of protocol-defined endpoint remission (HDRS-21 score ≤ 8 and YMRS score ≤ 12) with subsequent determination of optimally predictive factor score cutoffs.Factors for Psychomotor activity (YMRS items for elevated mood, increased motor activity, and increased speech and HDRS-21 agitation item) and Guilt/Suicidality (HDRS-21 items for guilt and suicidality) significantly predicted endpoint remission in the divalproex+olanzapine group. No factor predicted remission in the divalproex+placebo group. Patients in the divalproex+olanzapine group with high pre-augmentation psychomotor activity (scores ≥10) were more likely to remit compared to those with lower psychomotor activity (odds ratio [OR] = 3.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22-7.79), and patients with marginally high Guilt/Suicidality (scores ≥2) were less likely to remit than those with lower scores (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.13-1.03). Remission rates for divalproex+placebo vs. divalproex+olanzapine patients with high psychomotor activity scores were 22% vs. 45% (p = 0.08) and 33% vs. 48% (p = 0.29) for patients with low Guilt/Suicidality scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were partially nonresponsive to divalproex treatment with remaining high vs. low psychomotor activity levels or minimal vs. greater guilt/suicidality symptoms were more likely to remit with olanzapine augmentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00402324?term=NCT00402324&rank=1, Identifier: NCT00402324.

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.

Olanzapine-divalproex combination versus divalproex monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar mixed episodes: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: This 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial used simultaneous depression and mania criteria to compare a single mood stabilizer, divalproex, with and without adjunctive olanzapine in patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing acute mixed episodes. METHOD: Two hundred two adults, aged 18 to 60 years, who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for bipolar disorder with a current mixed episode and had been taking divalproex for >or=14 days at levels of 75 to 125 microg/mL with inadequate efficacy (21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS-21] and Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] scores >or=16) were randomly assigned to olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d versus placebo augmentation. HDRS-21, YMRS, Clinical Global Impressions for Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP), hospitalizations, concomitant medications, and adverse events were assessed. Comparisons included changes in both HDRS-21 and YMRS (primary outcome measure), time to partial response and time to response, CGI-BP improvement, hospitalizations, and safety (secondary outcome measures). The study was conducted from December 2006 to February 2008. RESULTS: Mean (SD) baseline HDRS-21 and YMRS scores were 22.2 (4.5) and 20.9 (4.4), respectively, with 59% female and 51% white subjects. Mean +/- SE score changes from baseline across the 6-week treatment period for adjunctive olanzapine (n = 100) versus adjunctive placebo (n = 101) arms, respectively, were -9.37 +/- 0.55 versus -7.69 +/- 0.54, P = .022, on the HDRS-21 and -10.15 +/- 0.44 versus -7.68 +/- 0.44 P < .001, on the YMRS. Mean +/- SE score changes from baseline to last observation carried forward for CGI-BP measures were -1.34 +/- 0.11 for adjunctive olanzapine versus -1.06 +/- 0.11 for adjunctive placebo, P = .056. Time to partial response (>or=25% HDRS-21 and YMRS decreases, median 7 versus 14 days) and time to response (>or=50% HDRS-21 and YMRS decreases, median 25 versus 49 days) were significantly shorter with adjunctive olanzapine. Increases in weight (total and >or=7%) and fasting blood glucose were significantly greater with adjunctive olanzapine. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive olanzapine yielded greater and earlier reduction of manic and depressive symptoms in mixed-episode patients with inadequate response to at least 2 weeks of divalproex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00402324.

Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination vs. lamotrigine in the 6-month treatment of bipolar I depression.

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) compared with lamotrigine (Lam) for long-term treatment of bipolar I depression, this 25-wk, randomized, double-blind study compared OFC (6/25, 6/50, 12/25, or 12/50 mg/d, n=205) with Lam titrated to 200 mg/d (n=205) in patients with bipolar I disorder, depressed. A protocol-specified analysis of 7-wk outcomes was previously reported. Outcome measures included Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) (primary), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores. OFC-treated patients had significantly greater improvement than Lam-treated patients over 25 wk on CGI-S (p=0.008), MADRS (p=0.005), and YMRS (p<0.001) scores, and from baseline across visits from week 5 (titration complete) to the end of the study on CGI-S (p=0.043), MADRS (p=0.017), and YMRS (p=0.001) scores. Of patients in remission after the 7-wk acute phase, there was no significant difference between treatment groups in the incidence of relapse (MADRS >15, p=0.528). Rate of treatment-emergent mania was not significantly different by treatment (p=0.401). OFC-treated patients had more frequent (p<0.05) somnolence, increased appetite, dry mouth, sedation, weight gain, and tremor; Lam-treated patients had more frequent insomnia. There was a significant difference in incidence of treatment-emergent cholesterol > or = 240 (p<0.001) and in weight gain of > or = 7% (p<0.001) in favour of the Lam group. Patients with bipolar I depression had significantly greater symptom improvement over 25 wk on OFC compared with Lam. There was no treatment difference in incidence of relapse. OFC-treated patients had more treatment-emergent adverse events and greater incidence of weight gain and hypercholesterolaemia.

Olanzapine does not enhance cognition in non-agitated and non-psychotic patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's dementia.

OBJECTIVE: This was an exploratory study of olanzapine as potential treatment for improvement in cognition in patients with Alzheimer's disease without prominent psychobehavioral symptoms. METHODS: Non-psychotic/non-agitated patients (n = 268) with Alzheimer's disease, who had baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores of 14-26 were randomized to treatment with olanzapine (2.5 to 7.5 mg/d) or placebo for 26 weeks. The primary objectives were to determine if treatment with olanzapine improved cognition as indexed by the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale for Cognition (ADAS-Cog) and the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC) after 26 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Patients treated with olanzapine vs placebo experienced significant worsening ADAS-Cog scores at weeks 12 (p = 0.03) and 26 (p = 0.004). Changes in CIBIC scores were not significantly different between treatment groups at either assessment. A post hoc analysis revealed that olanzapine-treated patients with more cognitive impairment at baseline (MMSE scores of 14-18) (n = 35) experienced significantly greater deterioration in ADAS-Cog performance than patients in the placebo group (n = 24; p < 0.001); whereas in patients with less cognitive impairment (n = 78, baseline MMSE scores of 23-26) between-group ADAS-Cog changes were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this 26-week study non-psychotic/non-agitated patients with Alzheimer's disease treated with olanzapine experienced significant worsening of cognition as compared to placebo.

Comparison of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of psychosis and associated behavioral disturbances in patients with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared efficacy of olanzapine versus placebo and risperidone as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Psychosis scale in patients with dementia-related psychosis. METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe psychotic symptoms associated with dementia were recruited from outpatient or residential settings and randomly assigned to 10-week, double-blind, flexible-dose treatment with olanzapine (N=204; 2.5 mg-10 mg/day; mean: 5.2 mg/day), risperidone (N=196; 0.5 mg-2 mg/day; mean: 1.0 mg/day) or placebo (N=94). RESULTS: Most measures of neuropsychiatric functioning improved in all treatment groups, including the placebo group, and no significant treatment differences occurred. Overall discontinuation was lowest in the placebo group, and the olanzapine group had a significantly higher incidence of discontinuation due to adverse events (16.2%) relative to placebo (3.2%) and risperidone (8.7%) groups. Treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms were more numerous for risperidone- than placebo- or olanzapine-treated patients. Abnormally high prolactin levels occurred in 78.0% of risperidone patients, compared with 16.7% for olanzapine and 5.0% for placebo. The incidence of weight gain greater than 7% from baseline was higher in the olanzapine group relative to risperidone, but neither active-treatment group showed a statistical difference from placebo (1.1%). No other statistically significant and clinically relevant differences were seen for any other vital sign, electrocardiographic measure, or laboratory hematology and chemistry, including glucose, except for cholesterol, which decreased from baseline to endpoint in both active-treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' neuropsychiatric functioning improved with olanzapine, risperidone, and placebo treatment. There was a substantial response in the placebo group, and no significant differences emerged among treatments.