Estimation of risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events from varenicline, bupropion and nicotine patch versus placebo: secondary analysis of results from the EAGLES trial using Bayes factors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Analysed using classical frequentist hypothesis testing with alpha set to 0.05, the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) did not find enough evidence to reject the hypothesis of no difference in neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) attributable to varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine patch compared with placebo. This might be because the null hypothesis was true or because the data were insensitive. The present study aimed to test the hypothesis more directly using Bayes factors. DESIGN: EAGLES was a randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, controlled trial. SETTING: Global (16 countries across five continents), between November 2011 and January 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were smokers with (n = 4116) and without (n = 4028) psychiatric disorders. INTERVENTIONS: Varenicline (1 mg twice daily), bupropion (150 mg twice daily), nicotine patch (21 mg once daily with taper) and matched placebos. MEASUREMENTS: The outcomes included: (i) a composite measure of moderate/severe NPSAEs; and (ii) a composite measure of severe NPSAEs. The relative evidence for there being no difference in NPSAEs versus data insensitivity for the medications was calculated in the full and sub-samples using Bayes factors and corresponding robustness regions. FINDINGS: For all but two comparisons, Bayes factors were <1/3, indicating moderate to strong evidence for no difference in risk of NPSAEs between active medications and placebo (Bayes factor = 0.02-0.23). In the psychiatric cohort versus placebo, the data were suggestive, but not conclusive of no increase in NPSAEs with varenicline (Bayes factor = 0.52) and bupropion (Bayes factor = 0.71). Here, the robustness regions ruled out a ≥7% and ≥8% risk increase with varenicline and bupropion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary analysis of the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study trial using Bayes factors provides moderate to strong evidence that use of varenicline, bupropion or nicotine patches for smoking cessation does not increase the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events relative to use of placebo in smokers without a history of psychiatric disorder. For smokers with a history of psychiatric disorder the evidence also points to no increased risk but with less confidence.

Safety and efficacy of first-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in bipolar disorders: Subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Post hoc analyses of EAGLES data to examine safety and efficacy of first-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in smokers with bipolar disorders (BD). METHODS: Smokers with BD I/II (n = 285; 81.4% with BD I) and a comparison nonpsychiatric cohort (NPC; n = 2794) were randomly assigned to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), or placebo for 12 weeks, plus weekly counseling. Primary outcomes were occurrence of moderate to severe neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) and Weeks 9-12 biochemically-confirmed continuous abstinence (CA) rates. RESULTS: For BD smokers, NPSAE risk differences versus placebo were: varenicline, 6.17 (95% CI: -7.84 to 20.18); bupropion, 4.09 (-8.82 to 16.99); NRT, -0.56 (-12.34 to 11.22). ORs for Weeks 9-12 CA, comparing active medication to placebo among BD smokers were: varenicline, 2.61 (0.68-9.95); bupropion, 1.29 (0.31-5.37), NRT, 0.71 (0.14-3.74). Pooling across treatments, NPSAE occurrence was higher (10.7% versus 2.3%; P < 0.001) and CA rates were lower (22.8% versus 13.3%; P = 0.008) in BD than NPC. LIMITATIONS: Study not powered to detect differences in safety and efficacy in the BD subcohort; generalizability limited to stably treated BD without current substance use disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers with BD had higher risk of NPSAEs and were less likely to quit overall than NPC smokers. Among smokers with BD, NPSAE risk difference estimates for active treatments versus placebo ranged from 1% lower to 6% higher. Efficacy of varenicline in smokers with BD was similar to EAGLES main outcomes; bupropion and NRT effect sizes were descriptively lower. Varenicline may be a tolerable and effective cessation treatment for smokers with BD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (https://clinicaltrials.gov/): NCT01456936.

Predictors of Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events with Smoking Cessation Medications in the Randomized Controlled EAGLES Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pre-treatment factors that increase smokers' risk of experiencing neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) when quitting smoking are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify baseline smoker characteristics beyond the history of mental illness that predict which participants were more likely to experience moderate to severe NPSAEs in EAGLES. DESIGN: A prospective correlational cohort study in the context of a multinational, multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers without (N = 3984; NPC)/with (N = 4050; PC) histories of, or current clinically stable, psychiatric disorders including mood (N = 2882; 71%), anxiety (N = 782; 19%), and psychotic (N = 386; 10%) disorders. INTERVENTIONS: Bupropion, 150 mg twice daily, or varenicline, 1 mg twice daily, versus active control (nicotine patch, 21 mg/day with taper) and placebo for 12 weeks with 12-week non-treatment follow-up. MAIN MEASURES: Primary safety outcome was the incidence of a composite measure of moderate/severe NPSAEs. Associations among baseline demographic/clinical characteristics and the primary safety endpoint were analyzed post hoc via generalized linear regression. KEY RESULTS: The incidence of moderate to severe NPSAEs was higher among smokers in the PC (238/4050; 5.9%) than in the NPC (84/3984; 2.1%). Three baseline characteristics predicted increased risk for experiencing clinically significant NPSAEs when quitting regardless of carrying a psychiatric diagnosis: current symptoms of anxiety (for every ~ 4-unit increase in HADS anxiety score, the absolute risk of occurrence of the NPSAE endpoint increased by 1% in both PC and NPC); prior history of suicidal ideation and/or behavior (PC, 4.4% increase; P = 0.001; NPC, 4.1% increase; P = 0.02), and being of White race (versus Black: PC, 2.9% ± 0.9 [SE] increase; P = 0.002; and NPC, 3.4% ± 0.8 [SE] increase; P = 0.001). Among smokers with psychiatric disorders, younger age, female sex, history of substance use disorders, and proxy measures of nicotine dependence or psychiatric illness severity also predicted greater risk. There were no significant interactions between these characteristics and treatment. Smokers with unstable psychiatric disorders or with current, active substance abuse were excluded from the study. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of cessation pharmacotherapy use, smokers attempting to quit were more likely to experience moderate to severe NPSAEs if they reported current anxiety or prior suicidal ideation at baseline and were White. In smokers with a psychiatric history, female sex, younger age, and greater severity of nicotine dependence were also predictive. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01456936.

Neuropsychiatric Safety and Efficacy of Varenicline, Bupropion, and Nicotine Patch in Smokers With Psychotic, Anxiety, and Mood Disorders in the EAGLES Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychiatric safety and relative efficacy of varenicline, bupropion, and transdermal nicotine patch (NRT) in those with psychiatric disorders are of interest. METHODS: We performed secondary analyses of safety and efficacy outcomes by psychiatric diagnosis in EAGLES (Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study), a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy, placebo- and active (NRT)-controlled trial of varenicline and bupropion with 12-week follow-up, in a subset population, n = 4092, with a primary psychotic (n = 390), anxiety (n = 792), or mood (n = 2910) disorder. Primary end-point parameters were incidence of prespecified moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) and weeks 9 to 12 continuous abstinence rates (9-12CAR). RESULTS: The observed NPSAE incidence across treatments was 5.1% to 6.3% in those with a psychotic disorder, 4.6% to 8.0% in those with an anxiety disorder, and 4.6% to 6.8% in those with a mood disorder. Neither varenicline nor bupropion was associated with significantly increased NPSAEs relative to NRT or placebo in the psychiatric cohort or any psychiatric diagnostic subcohort. There was a significant effect of treatment on 9-12CAR (P < 0.0001) and no significant treatment-by-diagnostic subcohort interaction (P = 0.24). Abstinence rates with varenicline were superior to bupropion, NRT, and placebo, and abstinence with bupropion and NRT was superior to placebo. Within-diagnostic subcohort comparisons of treatment efficacy yielded estimated odds ratios for 9-12CAR versus placebo of greater than 3.00 for varenicline, greater than 1.90 for bupropion, and greater than 1.80 for NRT for all diagnostic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine patch are well tolerated and effective in adults with psychotic, anxiety, and mood disorders. The relative effectiveness of varenicline, bupropion, and NRT versus placebo did not vary across psychiatric diagnoses.

Factors associated with the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments and predictors of smoking abstinence in EAGLES.

AIMS: To assess (1) how far the efficacies of front-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies vary as a function of smoker characteristics and (2) associations between these characteristics and success of smoking cessation attempts. DESIGN: Prospective correlational study in the context of a double-blind randomized trial. The outcome was regressed individually onto each covariate after adjusting for treatment, and then a forward stepwise model constructed. Treatment moderator effects of covariates were tested by treatment × covariate interactions. SETTING: Health service facilities in multiple countries. PARTICIPANTS: Data came from 8120 smokers willing to make a quit attempt, randomized to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or placebo in Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) between 30 November 2011 and 13 January 2015. MEASUREMENTS: Smoker characteristics measured at baseline were country, psychiatric history, sex, age, body mass index (BMI), ethnic group, life-time suicidal ideation/behaviour, anxiety, depression, aggression, psychotropic medication, history of alcohol/substance use disorder, age of starting smoking, cigarette dependence [Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD)] and prior use of study medicines. Outcome was biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence at weeks 9-24 from start of treatment. FINDINGS: No statistically significant treatment × covariate interactions were found. Odds of success were associated independently positively with age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.00, 1.01], BMI (1.01; 95% CI = 1.00, 1.02) and age of starting smoking (1.03; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.04). Odds were associated independently negatively with US (versus non-US) study site (0.53; 95% CI = 0.46, 0.61), black (versus white) ethnic group (0.57; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.72), mood disorder (0.85; 95% CI = 0.73, 0.99), anxiety disorder (0.71; 95% CI = 0.55, 0.90) and psychotic disorder (0.73; 95% CI = 0.50, 1.07), taking psychotropic medication (0.81; 95% CI = 0.68, 0.95), FTCD (0.89; 95% CI = 0.87, 0.92) and previous use of NRT (0.78; 95% CI = 0.67, 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: While a range of smoker characteristics-including psychiatric history, cigarette dependence and prior use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)-are associated with lower cessation rates, they do not substantially influence the efficacy of varenicline, bupropion or NRT.

Cardiovascular adverse events in the drug-development program of bupropion for smoking cessation: A systematic retrospective adjudication effort.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration requested that GlaxoSmithKline perform retrospective adjudication of cardiovascular (CV) events reported in the bupropion drug-development trials for smoking cessation. HYPOTHESIS: Retrospective adjudication of clinical trial data will not increase the identification of adverse events. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive retrospective analysis of adverse events in 19 previously completed controlled US clinical trials of bupropion marketed for the treatment of smoking cessation, yielding 9479 subjects (5290 bupropion, 2927 placebo, 1018 active control [ACT], and 244 treated concurrently with bupropion and ACT). All adverse events were sent to the Duke Clinical Research Institute for adjudication by Clinical Events Classification (CEC) physician reviewers. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse CV events: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: Overall, 416 nonfatal CV events in 366 subjects, and 22 deaths, were identified and processed for adjudication. Of these, 7 nonfatal MIs (4 bupropion, 3 placebo, 0 ACT), 5 nonfatal strokes (1 bupropion, 3 placebo, 1 ACT), and 9 CV deaths (4 bupropion, 4 placebo, 1 ACT) were confirmed by the CEC Committee. The primary endpoint occurred in 3/4297 (0.07%) subjects in the bupropion group and in 4/2927 (0.14%) subjects in the placebo group (log-rank P value: 0.613). CONCLUSIONS: CV events in bupropion clinical trials for smoking cessation were uncommon, with no observed increase among subjects assigned to bupropion vs placebo. However, this effort was limited by a paucity of quality data.

Neuropsychiatric safety and efficacy of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine patch in smokers with and without psychiatric disorders (EAGLES): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Substantial concerns have been raised about the neuropsychiatric safety of the smoking cessation medications varenicline and bupropion. Their efficacy relative to nicotine patch largely relies on indirect comparisons, and there is limited information on safety and efficacy in smokers with psychiatric disorders. We compared the relative neuropsychiatric safety risk and efficacy of varenicline and bupropion with nicotine patch and placebo in smokers with and without psychiatric disorders. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, placebo-controlled and active-controlled (nicotine patch; 21 mg per day with taper) trial of varenicline (1 mg twice a day) and bupropion (150 mg twice a day) for 12 weeks with 12-week non-treatment follow-up done at 140 centres (clinical trial centres, academic centres, and outpatient clinics) in 16 countries between Nov 30, 2011, and Jan 13, 2015. Participants were motivated-to-quit smokers with and without psychiatric disorders who received brief cessation counselling at each visit. Randomisation was computer generated (1:1:1:1 ratio). Participants, investigators, and research personnel were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a composite measure of moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events. The main efficacy endpoint was biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence for weeks 9-12. All participants randomly assigned were included in the efficacy analysis and those who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01456936) and is now closed. FINDINGS: 8144 participants were randomly assigned, 4116 to the psychiatric cohort (4074 included in the safety analysis) and 4028 to the non-psychiatric cohort (3984 included in the safety analysis). In the non-psychiatric cohort, 13 (1·3%) of 990 participants reported moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events in the varenicline group, 22 (2·2%) of 989 in the bupropion group, 25 (2·5%) of 1006 in the nicotine patch group, and 24 (2·4%) of 999 in the placebo group. The varenicline-placebo and bupropion-placebo risk differences (RDs) for moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events were -1·28 (95% CI -2·40 to -0·15) and -0·08 (-1·37 to 1·21), respectively; the RDs for comparisons with nicotine patch were -1·07 (-2·21 to 0·08) and 0·13 (-1·19 to 1·45), respectively. In the psychiatric cohort, moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events were reported in 67 (6·5%) of 1026 participants in the varenicline group, 68 (6·7%) of 1017 in the bupropion group, 53 (5·2%) of 1016 in the nicotine patch group, and 50 (4·9%) of 1015 in the placebo group. The varenicline-placebo and bupropion-placebo RDs were 1·59 (95% CI -0·42 to 3·59) and 1·78 (-0·24 to 3·81), respectively; the RDs versus nicotine patch were 1·22 (-0·81 to 3·25) and 1·42 (-0·63 to 3·46), respectively. Varenicline-treated participants achieved higher abstinence rates than those on placebo (odds ratio [OR] 3·61, 95% CI 3·07 to 4·24), nicotine patch (1·68, 1·46 to 1·93), and bupropion (1·75, 1·52 to 2·01). Those on bupropion and nicotine patch achieved higher abstinence rates than those on placebo (OR 2·07 [1·75 to 2·45] and 2·15 [1·82 to 2·54], respectively). Across cohorts, the most frequent adverse events by treatment group were nausea (varenicline, 25% [511 of 2016 participants]), insomnia (bupropion, 12% [245 of 2006 participants]), abnormal dreams (nicotine patch, 12% [251 of 2022 participants]), and headache (placebo, 10% [199 of 2014 participants]). Efficacy treatment comparison did not differ by cohort. INTERPRETATION: The study did not show a significant increase in neuropsychiatric adverse events attributable to varenicline or bupropion relative to nicotine patch or placebo. Varenicline was more effective than placebo, nicotine patch, and bupropion in helping smokers achieve abstinence, whereas bupropion and nicotine patch were more effective than placebo. FUNDING: Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.

Adjunctive Maintenance Lamotrigine for Pediatric Bipolar I Disorder: A Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Withdrawal Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of lamotrigine versus placebo in 10- to 17-year-olds with bipolar I disorder (BP-I) who were receiving conventional bipolar disorder treatment. METHOD: In this randomized withdrawal trial, patients with BP-I of at least moderate severity received lamotrigine during an ≤18-week open-label phase. Patients who maintained a stable lamotrigine dose for ≥2 weeks and Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity of Illness (CGI-BP[S]) score of ≤3 for ≥6 consecutive weeks were randomized to double-blind lamotrigine or placebo for ≤36 weeks. RESULTS: Of 301 patients enrolled, 298 comprised the open-label intention-to-treat population, with 173 (58%) randomized. Of these patients, 41 (24%) completed the study. In the open-label phase, the mean (SD) baseline CGI-BP(S) rating was 4.4 (0.57), and the mean (standard error [SE]) time to stabilization was 101 (1.6) days. During the randomized phase, mean (SE) time to occurrence of a bipolar event (TOBE) for lamotrigine versus placebo (primary endpoint) was 155 (14.7) versus 50 (3.8), 163 (12.2) versus 120 (12.2), and 136 (15.4) versus 107 (13.8) days for the 3 index mood states (depressed, manic/hypomanic, mixed). The primary stratified log-rank analysis of TOBE was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; p = .072); however, the prespecified Cox regression analysis favored lamotrigine (p = .047). In 13- to 17-year-olds, log-rank analysis of TOBE significantly favored lamotrigine (HR = 0.46; p = .015), but not in 10- to 12-year-olds (HR = 0.93; p = .877). Dermatologic events were reported in 4% (open-label phase) and 2% (randomized phase) of patients receiving lamotrigine. Suicidality-related adverse events were reported in 7% (open-label phase) and 7% (randomized phase) of patients receiving lamotrigine. CONCLUSION: Although the primary analysis failed to detect a benefit of add-on lamotrigine for BP-I in 10- to 17-year-olds, lamotrigine may be effective in a subset of older adolescents. Clinical trial registration information-Lamictal as Add-on Treatment for Bipolar I Disorder in Pediatric Patients; http://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT00723450.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the analgesic efficacy and safety of the p38 MAP kinase inhibitor, losmapimod, in patients with neuropathic pain from lumbosacral radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVES: Preclinical studies have demonstrated involvement of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathways in the development of persistent pain after peripheral nerve injury. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of losmapimod (GW856553), a novel p38α/ß inhibitor, in patients with chronic neuropathic pain due to lumbosacral radiculopathy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 144 patients with at least moderate baseline pain intensity (average daily score of ≥4 on an 11-point pain intensity numeric rating scale) were randomized to receive losmapimod, 7.5 mg bid orally or placebo. All patients underwent a blinded placebo run-in period for 7 days before receiving losmapimod/placebo for 28 days. Efficacy and safety evaluations were undertaken weekly. RESULTS: The adjusted mean treatment difference for the change from baseline to week 4 in numeric rating scale was -0.36 U (95% confidence interval, -0.84, 0.13; P=0.149) in favor of losmapimod over placebo; this was not considered clinically meaningful. Statistically significant differences in favor of losmapimod were observed, however, for several secondary endpoints of emotional, physical, and social functioning: Oswestry Disability Index; Profile of Mood States total score; Short-Form 36 Health Survey physical functioning, bodily pain, general health, role emotional, social functioning, and vitality domains; and Short-Form 36 physical, and mental components. There were no unexpected findings related to safety or tolerability following treatment with losmapimod. DISCUSSION: Losmapimod could not be differentiated from placebo in terms of analgesia. The lack of response could reflect insufficient losmapimod levels in the spinal cord or differences between lumbosacral radiculopathy and animal models of neuropathic pain.

Relief of menstrual symptoms and migraine with a single-tablet formulation of sumatriptan and naproxen sodium.

BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhea and menstrual migraine may share a common pathogenic pathway. Both appear to be mediated, in part, by an excess of prostaglandin production that occurs during menstruation. METHODS: Data were pooled from two replicate randomized controlled trials of 621 adult menstrual migraineurs with dysmenorrhea who treated migraine with sumatriptan-naproxen or placebo. Along with headache symptoms, nonpain menstrual symptoms (bloating, fatigue, and irritability) and menstrual pain symptoms (abdominal and back pain) were recorded at the time periods of 30 minutes and 1, 2, 4, and 4-24 hours. Relief of menstrual symptoms was compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Logistic regression was used to determine the odds of a headache response with increasing numbers of moderate to severe dymenorrheic symptoms. RESULTS: Sumatriptan-naproxen was superior to placebo for relief of tiredness, irritability, and abdominal pain at the time periods of 2, 4, and 4-24 hours (p≤0.023); back pain at the time periods of 4 and 4-24 hours (p≤0.023); and bloating at 4-24 hours endpoint (p=0.01). The odds ratios (ORs) of attaining migraine pain freedom for 2 hours and for sustained 2-24 hours decreased as moderate to severe dysmenorrhea symptoms increased with sumatriptan-naproxen versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with sumatriptan-naproxen may provide relief of menstrual symptoms and migraine in female migraineurs with dysmenorrhea. The presence of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea symptoms is associated with decreased response rates for menstrual migraine, suggesting that the co-occurrence of these disorders may negatively impact the results of migraine-abortive therapy.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy in lamotrigine randomized-controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Nonrandomized studies of the relationship of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may be susceptible to confounding by tonic-clonic seizure frequency, polypharmacy, and other potential risk factors for SUDEP. We evaluated the risk of SUDEP with lamotrigine (LTG) compared to active comparators and placebo in randomized controlled clinical trials conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) between 1984 and 2009. METHODS: Among 7,774 subjects in 42 randomized clinical trials, there were 39 all-cause deaths. Ten deaths occurred >2 weeks after discontinuation of study medication and were excluded. Narrative summaries of deaths were independently reviewed by three clinical experts (TT, LH, DF), who were blinded to randomized treatment arm. The risk of definite or probable SUDEP was compared between treatment arms for each trial type (placebo-controlled, active-comparator, crossover), using exact statistical methods. KEY FINDINGS: Of 29 on-treatment deaths, eight were definite/probable SUDEP, four were possible SUDEP, and 17 were non-SUDEP. The overall, unadjusted rate of definite/probable SUDEP for LTG was 2.2 events per 1,000-patient years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.70-5.4). The odds ratios (OR) for on-treatment, definite/probable SUDEP in LTG arms relative to comparator arms, adjusted for length of exposure and trial, were the following: placebo-controlled, OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.00-3.14; p = 0.26); active-comparator, OR 2.18 (95% CI 0.17-117; p = 0.89); and placebo-controlled cross-over, OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.00-42.2; p = 1.0). SIGNIFICANCE: There was no statistically significant difference in rate of SUDEP between LTG and comparator groups. However, the CIs were wide and a clinically important effect cannot be excluded.

Sumatriptan-naproxen and butalbital: a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of a sumatriptan and naproxen combination medication (SumaRT/Nap-85mg sumatriptan and 500mg naproxen sodium), a butalbital-containing combination medication (BCM-50mg butalbital, 325mg acetaminophen, 40mg caffeine), and placebo when used to treat moderate to severe migraine headache pain in subjects who used BCMs in the past. BACKGROUND: Despite the lack of Food and Drug Administration approval and the absence of placebo-controlled trials to demonstrate efficacy, butalbital-containing medications are among the most commonly prescribed acute migraine treatments in the United States. Butalbital-containing medications are associated with serious and undesirable side effects, and have been linked to the chronification of migraine and development of medication-overuse headaches. This study compares the relative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a fixed dose SumaRT/Nap versus a BCM and placebo. METHODS: Enrolled subjects were required to have treated at least 1 migraine with a butalbital medication in the past. Enrolled subjects treated 3 moderate to severe migraines using each of the 3 study treatments once in a randomized sequence. The primary endpoint compared SumaRT/Nap versus BCM for sustained pain freedom at 2-24 hours without the use of any rescue medication. This study combines data from 2 identical outpatient, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, 3 attack crossover studies in adult migraineurs (International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition). RESULTS: A total of 442 subjects treated at least 1 attack with study medication. The majority of the treated subjects were female (88%) with a mean age 43 years, who reported that their migraines had a severe impact on their lives (78% with Headache Impact Test-6 of >59). At screening, 88% of subjects reported current butalbital use; 68% had used butalbital for more than 6 weeks; and 82% reported satisfaction with butalbital. Across treatment groups, 28-29% of subjects took study medication within 15 minutes of migraine onset, 34-37% of subjects took study medication >15 minutes to 2 hours after onset, and 32-36% of subjects took study medication more than 2 hours after onset. This study did not detect a difference at the nominal 0.05 level in percent sustained pain-free between SumaRT/Nap (8%), BCM (6%), and placebo (3%). SumaRT/Nap was superior to BCM for pain free at 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 48 hours (P≤.044); pain relief (mild or no pain) at 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 48 hours (P≤.01); sustained pain relief 2-24 hours (P<.001); migraine free (pain free with no nausea, photophobia, or phonophobia) at 4, 6, 8, 24, 48 hours (P≤.046); and complete symptom free (migraine free with no neck/sinus pain) at 4, 6, 8, 48 hours (P≤.031). Adverse event incidence was similar for all treatments (10%, 12%, and 9% for placebo, SumaRT/Nap, and BCM, respectively). Nausea was the most frequent adverse event (2%, 2%, and <1% for placebo, SumaRT/Nap, and BCM, respectively). Five serious adverse events were reported by 3 subjects: viral meningitis and colon neoplasm (placebo); chest pain and hypertension 17 days postdose (SumaRT/Nap); and breast cancer (BCM). Investigators judged no serious adverse events related to study medication. CONCLUSIONS: This study primarily included subjects whose migraines significantly impacted their lives. Before the study, these subjects used butalbital-containing medications as part of their current migraine treatment regimen and were satisfied with it, suggesting they were butalbital responders who had found a workable treatment strategy for themselves. When treated with SumaRT/Nap versus BCM in this study, however, a significant proportion of subjects reported better treatment outcomes for themselves for both migraine pain and associated symptoms. Use of SumaRT/Nap was also associated with less rescue medication use and a longer time before use of rescue medication compared with both BCM and placebo.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR.

Bupropion, a noradrenaline/dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and venlafaxine, a serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, are both established antidepressants with proven efficacy in randomized controlled clinical trials. The objective of this double-blind, randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, eight-week, flexible-dose study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the once-daily extended-release formulations of these two antidepressants compared with placebo. Patients with major depressive disorder were randomized to once-daily treatment with bupropion XR 150 mg (n = 204), the extended-release formulation of venlafaxine (venlafaxine XR) 75 mg (n = 198) or placebo (n = 189) during weeks 1 to 4, with the option to double the dose at week 5 if response was inadequate. In this study, bupropion XR did not demonstrate statistically significant evidence of greater improvement from baseline compared with placebo on week 8 Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating scale scores (primary endpoint) or on secondary endpoints including CGI, HAM-A and responder and remitter analyses. Descriptive statistics for venlafaxine XR indicated separation versus placebo on MADRS total scores at week 8 and other intermediate time points, and on other endpoints including CGI, HAM-A and responder and remitter analyses. Both active treatments elicited improvement on the Sheehan Disability Scale and its subscales and were generally well tolerated at the doses studied. Rates of nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, insomnia, constipation, tremor, anorexia and male sexual dysfunction were elevated in the venlafaxine XR group, consistent with its mixed serotonergic/noradrenergic mechanism. Rates of dry mouth, insomnia and hyperhidrosis were elevated in the bupropion XR group, consistent with its catecholaminergic mechanism.

Meta-analysis of suicidality in placebo-controlled clinical trials of adults taking bupropion.

OBJECTIVE: To assess a possible relationship between treatment with bupropion (vs placebo) and expressed suicidal ideation and behavior. DATA SOURCES: This analysis, based on the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) analysis of antidepressant suicidality data, included 8,953 adult subjects receiving bupropion and 6,520 adult subjects receiving placebo from randomized, placebo-controlled trials with bupropion conducted between 1976 and 2006 across multiple indications, including major depressive disorder (MDD). A text string search of the adverse event database and case report form comments was performed to identify potential suicidal events. FDA search criteria included the following text strings: accident-, injur-, suic-, or overdos-, including all events coded as accidental overdose, attempt, cut, gas, hang, hung, jump, mutilat-, self damag-, self harm, self inflict-, shoot, slash, poison, asphyxiation, suffocation, firearm, burn, drown, gun, immolat-, and monoxide, and the following terms were added by GlaxoSmithKline to the search criteria: accident, lacerat-, MVA, and hospital. The database search included data beginning from the first dose of study medication through 1 day following the last dose. DATA EXTRACTION: Suicidal event narratives were classified using the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide Assessment. Additionally, changes on rating scale items for depressed mood and suicidality were analyzed. DATA SYNTHESIS: In the MDD population, the incidence of suicidal behavior or ideation was 17/3,179 (0.53%) versus 11/2,310 (0.48%) for the bupropion and placebo groups, respectively (OR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.59-2.86). For suicidal behavior, the incidence was 8/3,179 (0.25%) versus 2/2,310 (0.09%), respectively (OR = 3.52; 95% CI, 0.81-24.48). No suicidal behavior event was noted in the other indications, and no completed suicides were reported during treatment. No significant worsening was observed for bupropion relative to placebo on the rating scale items. No differential treatment effects were observed by gender or age; regardless of treatment, however, the 18- to 24-year-old group had the greatest odds of having a suicide event. CONCLUSIONS: Although no statistically significant differences were observed between bupropion and placebo in expressed suicidal ideation or behavior, we believe that all patients treated with antidepressants should receive careful monitoring for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior.

Efficacy of bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of major depressive disorder with high levels of anxiety (anxious depression): a pooled analysis of 10 studies.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this work was to compare the efficacy of the norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor bupropion with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of major depressive disorder with high levels of anxiety (anxious depression). METHOD: Ten double-blind, randomized studies from 1991 through 2006 were combined (N = 2122). Anxious depression was defined as a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) anxiety-somatization factor score >or= 7. RESULTS: Among patients with anxious depression (N = 1275), response rates were greater following SSRI than bupropion treatment according to the HAM-D-17 (65.4% vs. 59.4%, p = .03) and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (61.5% vs. 54.5%, p = .03). There was also a greater reduction in HAM-D-17 mean +/- SD scores (-14.1 +/- 7.6 vs. -13.2 +/- 7.9, p = .03) and a trend toward statistical significance for a greater reduction in HAM-A mean +/- SD scores (-10.5 +/- 7.4 vs. -9.6 +/- 7.6, p = .05) in favor of SSRI treatment among patients with anxious depression. There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between bupropion and the SSRIs among patients with moderate/low levels of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a modest advantage for the SSRIs compared to bupropion in the treatment of anxious depression (6% difference in response rates). Using the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) statistic as 1 indicator of clinical significance, nearly 17 patients would need to be treated with an SSRI than with bupropion in order to obtain 1 additional responder. This difference falls well above the limit of NNT = 10, which was suggested by the United Kingdom's National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Nevertheless, the present work is of theoretical interest because it provides preliminary evidence suggesting a central role for serotonin in the regulation of symptoms of negative affect such as anxiety.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effect of sustained-release bupropion on blood pressure in individuals with mild untreated hypertension.

The effects of bupropion on blood pressure and heart rate were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of community volunteers with untreated mild (stage 1) hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP], 140-159 mm Hg, and/or diastolic blood pressure, 90-99 mm Hg). Three hundred subjects were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to 4 weeks of placebo or bupropion sustained release (SR) 150, 300, or 400 mg/d. Mean clinical blood pressures decreased from baseline to the end of protocol in all groups (n = 296): -6.53, -6.46, -4.20, -4.87 mm Hg for SBP; and -2.36, -2.27, -1.95, -1.55 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure, for each group, respectively. Although decreases in mean clinical blood pressure were observed in all groups, the reduction in SBP was less on bupropion SR 300 mg/d than on placebo (-4.20 vs -6.53 mm Hg, respectively; Delta = 2.33, P = 0.020). Neither mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements nor the proportion of subjects with clinically significant increases in blood pressure differed between any bupropion SR dose and placebo. Mean heart rate increases were small but statistically significant at 400 mg/d versus placebo (2.28 vs -0.64 beats/min; Delta = 2.92, P = 0.004). Although only minor effects on blood pressure were observed in this trial, an infrequent association of bupropion therapy and treatment-emergent hypertension cannot be ruled out.

Efficacy of bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of anxiety symptoms in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 10 double-blind, randomized clinical trials.

The goal of this work was to compare the efficacy of the norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor bupropion with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of anxiety symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD). Ten double-blind, randomized studies, involving a total of 2890 bupropion-, SSRI- or placebo- treated patients were pooled. Anxiety symptoms of depression were defined using the Hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS) Anxiety-Somatization factor (HDRS-AS) score, as well as the Hamilton anxiety scale (HAM-A) score. Both bupropion and the SSRIs led to a comparable degree of improvement in anxiety symptoms, defined using the HDRS-AS score (-3.8+/-2.8 vs. -3.9+/-2.8, p=0.130) or HAM-A score (-8.8+/-7.2 vs. -9.1+/-7.0, p=0.177). There was no consistent difference in the time to anxiolysis between the two treatment groups. In addition, there was no difference in the proportion of bupropion- and SSRI- remitters who continued to experience residual anxiety, defined as a HDRS-AS score >0 at endpoint (69.2% vs. 74.7%, p=0.081) or a HAM-A score >7 at endpoint (9.5% vs. 8.4%, p=0.284). Finally, there was no statistically significant difference in the severity of residual anxiety symptoms between bupropion- or SSRI- treated patients with remitted depression, defined using the HDRS-AS (1.15+/-1.14 vs. 1.25+/-1.09, p=0.569), or HAM-A scores at endpoint (3.30+/-2.89 vs. 3.31+/-2.89, p=0.552). Contrary to clinician impression, there does not appear to be any difference in the anxiolytic efficacy of bupropion and the SSRIs when used to treat MDD.

Comparing the rapidity of response during treatment of major depressive disorder with bupropion and the SSRIs: a pooled survival analysis of 7 double-blind, randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Several controlled studies, as well as a meta-analysis, suggest that the efficacy of bupropion, a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is comparable to that of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The current analysis was undertaken to determine if these antidepressants differ in rapidity of clinical effect. METHOD: Individual patient data were obtained from 7 double-blind, randomized studies of 8 weeks' duration that compared bupropion (N = 836) and SSRIs (sertraline, paroxetine, fluoxetine, and escitalopram; N = 836). Time to first response and first remission were compared between treatment groups with the use of Cox proportional hazards regression models, stratified by trial number, with depression severity at baseline as a covariate. A secondary analysis compared outcomes in the 2 bupropion versus escitalopram studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were then conducted to confirm the survival-analysis findings. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between bupropion and the SSRIs in time to first response (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.955; p = .43) and first remission (HR = 1.00; p = .97). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between bupropion and escitalopram in time to first response (HR = 0.897; p = .29), and first remission (HR = 0.999; p = .99). These results were confirmed with the use of random-effects meta-analyses (p > .05, all 4 analyses). CONCLUSION: There does not appear to be any statistically detectable difference in the rapidity of antidepressant effect between bupropion and the SSRIs overall or escitalopram specifically.

Relative antidepressant efficacy of bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in major depressive disorder: gender-age interactions.

To determine whether age/gender-based differences in efficacy exist between bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depressive disorder, we pooled the findings of 10 double-blind studies comparing bupropion with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Men (N=943) and women (N=1179) were divided into three age groups (younger than 40, 40-55, older than 55). Improvement in terms of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, as well as the Bech melancholia, anxiety-somatization, and insomnia factors of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was compared between the two treatment groups. Of 64 pair-wise comparisons, only one was statistically significant. Specifically, more women treated with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor experienced a 50% or greater decrease in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety-Somatization scores (58.8 versus 63.8%, P=0.0394). No difference, however, was seen in the degree of resolution of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety-Somatization scores (continuous measure) between women treated with bupropion versus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (P=0.114). Bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, thus, appear to be equally effective in treating depressive symptoms, as well as anxious/somatic symptoms and insomnia in depression. No gender-related or age-related differences were found except that greater improvement was seen in anxious/somatic symptoms of depression among women during selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment. This finding could, however, not be replicated when improvement in anxious/somatic symptoms was defined as a continuous measure.

Resolution of sleepiness and fatigue in major depressive disorder: A comparison of bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine whether the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with the norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI) bupropion results in a greater resolution of sleepiness and fatigue than with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). METHODS: Six double-blind, randomized clinical trials comparing bupropion (n = 662) with an SSRI (n = 655) for the treatment of MDD were pooled. Hypersomnia scores were defined as the sum of scores of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) items #22, 23, and 24. Fatigue scores were defined as the score of HDRS item #13. RESULTS: There was a greater improvement in hypersomnia scores among bupropion-treated than SSRI-treated (p < .0001) or placebo-treated patients (p = .0008). There was also a greater improvement in fatigue scores among bupropion-treated (p < .0001) and SSRI-treated (p = .0005) than placebo-treated patients as well as a greater improvement in fatigue scores among bupropion-treated than SSRI-treated patients (p = .0078). Fewer bupropion-remitters than SSRI-remitters experienced residual hypersomnia (20.5% vs. 32.1%; p = .0014) or residual fatigue (19.5% vs. 30.2%; p = .0020). CONCLUSION: Treatment of MDD with the NDRI bupropion resulted in a greater resolution of sleepiness and fatigue than SSRIs treatment. Although preliminary, these results warrant prospectively designed studies examining potential differences between bupropion and the SSRIs on these specific depressive symptoms.