Dasatinib in Pediatric Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase: Results From a Phase II Trial.

Purpose Safe, effective treatments are needed for pediatric patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP). Dasatinib is approved for treatment of adults and children with CML-CP. A phase I study determined suitable dosing for children with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) leukemias. Methods CA180-226/NCT00777036 is a phase II, open-label, nonrandomized prospective trial of patients < 18 years of age receiving dasatinib. There are three cohorts: (1) imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML-CP, (2) imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML in accelerated/blast phase or Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n = 17), and (3) newly diagnosed CML-CP treated with tablets or powder for oral suspension. Major cytogenetic response > 30% for imatinib-resistant/intolerant patients and complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) > 55% for newly diagnosed patients were of clinical interest. Results Of 113 patients with CML-CP, 14 (48%) who were imatinib-resistant/intolerant and 61 (73%) who were newly diagnosed remained on treatment at time of analysis. Major cytogenetic response > 30% was reached by 3 months in the imatinib-resistant/intolerant group and CCyR > 55% was reached by 6 months in the newly diagnosed CML-CP group. CCyR and major molecular response by 12 months, respectively, were 76% and 41% in the imatinib-resistant/intolerant group and 92% and 52% in newly diagnosed CML-CP group. Progression-free survival by 48 months was 78% and 93% in the imatinib-resistant/intolerant and newly diagnosed CML-CP groups, respectively. No dasatinib-related pleural or pericardial effusion, pulmonary edema, or pulmonary arterial hypertension were reported. Bone growth and development events were reported in 4% of patients. Conclusion In the largest prospective trial to date in children with CML-CP, we demonstrate that dasatinib is a safe, effective treatment of pediatric CML-CP. Target responses to first- or second-line dasatinib were met early, and deep molecular responses were observed. Safety of dasatinib in pediatric patients was similar to that observed in adults; however, no cases of pleural or pericardial effusion or pulmonary arterial hypertension were reported.

Abatacept in subjects who switch from intravenous to subcutaneous therapy: results from the phase IIIb ATTUNE study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess safety, immunogenicity and efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients switched from long-term intravenous to subcutaneous (SC) abatacept. METHODS: In this phase IIIb, open-label, single-arm trial, patients who completed ≥4 years of intravenous abatacept (in long-term extensions of two phase III studies) were enrolled to receive SC abatacept (125 mg/week). The primary objective was safety during the first 3 months after switching from intravenous therapy. RESULTS: 123 patients entered the study (mean Disease Activity Score 28 (based on C reactive protein) and HAQ-DI of 3.4 and 0.94, respectively). At month 3, 120 (97.6%) patients were continuing to receive SC abatacept; no patients discontinued due to lack of efficacy. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 49 (39.8%) patients through month 3. One patient (0.8%) discontinued due to an AE and one patient (0.8%) experienced a serious AE. Two (1.6%) patients had SC injection site reactions (erythema, pain), both with mild intensity. Clinical efficacy was maintained throughout. Limited impact on immunogenicity was observed when switching routes of administration. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that patients can switch from long-term monthly intravenous abatacept to a weekly fixed dose of 125 mg SC abatacept with no increased safety concerns. This study further supports SC abatacept as an alternative treatment option for patients with RA.

Aripiprazole augmentation in major depressive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with inadequate response to antidepressants.

INTRODUCTION: Effective management of major depressive disorder (MDD) continues to be a challenging task for psychiatrists and primary care physicians. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole versus antidepressant monotherapy in patients with MDD and independently replicated the positive findings of two similar trials. METHODS: Patients (N=1,147) with MDD experiencing a major depressive episode and a history of inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy were enrolled (week 0); 827 received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus open-label antidepressant (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended release) for 8 weeks to confirm inadequate response to antidepressants; 349 patients with inadequate response were randomized (1:1) to double-blind, adjunctive placebo (n=172) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n=177; 2-20 mg/day). Primary outcome was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total score from baseline (week 8) to endpoint (week 14). RESULTS: Clinically significant improvements in depressive symptoms as assessed by decreases in the MADRS Total score were greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (-10.1) than placebo (-6.4; P<.001). Remission rates were greater for adjunctive aripiprazole than for adjunctive placebo (week 14, 36.8% vs 18.9%; P<.001). Completion rates with adjunctive aripiprazole and placebo were high (83% vs. 87%) and discontinuations due to adverse events were low (6.2% vs 1.7%). CONCLUSION: For some patients with MDD who do not obtain adequate symptom relief with antidepressant monotherapy, adjunctive therapies can significantly improve depressive symptoms. As reported, adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with a two-fold higher remission rate than adjunctive placebo. This, and previous studies, have shown that discontinuations due to adverse events were low and completion rates were high, and has indicated that both antidepressant and aripiprazole in combination were relatively well-tolerated and safe. This is the third consecutive clinical trial, in the absence of a failed trial, to demonstrate that aripiprazole augmentation to antidepressants is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for patients with MDD who do not respond adequately to standard antidepressant monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00105196).

A double-blind, randomized comparative study of aripiprazole and olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared the efficacy and tolerability of atypical agents. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole (n = 355) with olanzapine (n = 348) in patients with schizophrenia experiencing acute relapse. After a 6-week acute treatment phase, patients with Clinical Global Impression-Improvement = 1-3 or > or = 20% reduction in the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) Total score could progress to the 46-week outpatient extension phase. Co-primary study objectives were to compare efficacy at Week 6 and weight gain liability from baseline to Week 26. RESULTS: The mean olanzapine dose was 15.4 mg/day compared with a mean aripiprazole dose of 23.0 mg/day. More patients treated with olanzapine (47%) completed the 52-week study than those treated with aripiprazole (39%); time to discontinuation was significantly in favor of olanzapine (p < .05). At Week 6, mean change in PANSS Total score (olanzapine, -29.5; aripiprazole, -24.6 [random regression model]) showed a treatment difference of 4.9 points. As the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (6 points) was within the 95% confidence interval (2.2-7.6) for treatment difference, olanzapine proved to be superior to aripiprazole on this measure. More patients experienced significant weight gain at Week 26 with olanzapine (40%) than with aripiprazole (21%; p < .05 [weighted generalized estimating equation analysis]), with significant differences observed from Week 3. Mean weight gain at Week 26 was significantly greater with olanzapine than with aripiprazole (+4.30 kg vs. +.13 kg, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine had a statistically significant efficacy advantage over aripiprazole, whereas aripiprazole was associated with significantly less weight gain.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aripiprazole for the treatment of psychosis in nursing home patients with Alzheimer disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole treatment for psychotic symptoms associated with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: In this parallel group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose trial, institutionalized subjects with AD and psychotic symptoms were randomized to aripiprazole (n = 131) or placebo (n = 125) for 10 weeks. The aripiprazole starting dose was 2 mg/day, and could be titrated to higher doses (5, 10, and 15 mg/day) based on efficacy and tolerability. RESULTS: No significant differences in mean change [2 x SD] from baseline between aripiprazole (mean dose approximately 9 mg/day at endpoint; range = 0.7-15.0 mg) and placebo were detected in the coprimary efficacy endpoints of Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version (NPI-NH) Psychosis score (aripiprazole, -4.53 [9.23]; placebo, -4.62 [9.56]; F = 0.02, df = 1, 222, p = 0.883 [ANCOVA]) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity score (aripiprazole, -0.57 [1.63]; placebo, -0.43 [1.65]; F = 1.67, df = 1, 220, p = 0.198 [ANCOVA]) at endpoint. However, improvements in several secondary efficacy measures (NPI-NH Total, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Total, CGI - improvement, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory and Cornell Depression Scale scores) indicated that aripiprazole may confer clinical benefits beyond the primary outcome measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were similar in both groups, except for somnolence (aripiprazole, 14%; placebo, 4%). Somnolence with aripiprazole was of mild or moderate intensity, and not associated with accidental injury. Incidence of AEs related to extrapyramidal symptoms was low with aripiprazole (5%) and placebo (4%). CONCLUSIONS: In nursing home residents with AD and psychosis, aripiprazole did not confer specific benefits for the treatment of psychotic symptoms; but psychological and behavioral symptoms, including agitation, anxiety, and depression, were improved with aripiprazole, with a low risk of AEs.

Examining the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis of 2 studies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who fail to achieve complete remission with antidepressant therapy may benefit from augmentation therapy with an atypical antipsychotic. METHOD: A pooled analysis was performed on 2 identical 14-week studies (8-week prospective antidepressant therapy treatment phase followed by 6-week randomized double-blind phase) evaluating the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole (2-20 mg/day) in DSM-IV-TR-defined MDD patients with an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy. Primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from end of the prospective phase (week 8) to end of randomized phase (week 14, last observation carried forward). Subgroup analyses were performed. The key secondary endpoint was mean change in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) mean score. RESULTS: At endpoint, mean change in MADRS total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (-8.7) than with adjunctive placebo (-5.7; p < .001). Except for a differential treatment-by-sex interaction, change in MADRS total scores were consistently greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than with adjunctive placebo, regardless of race, age, episode duration, prior antidepressant therapy response, number of historical treatment failures, severity of depressive symptoms, and antidepressant. At endpoint, MADRS remission rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than with placebo (25.7% vs. 15.4%; p < .001). Adjunctive aripiprazole also demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean change from baseline in SDS total score than adjunctive placebo (-1.2 vs. -0.6; p = .001). CONCLUSION: Augmentation of antidepressant therapy with the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole resulted in significant efficacy benefits across a range of subgroups of patients with MDD. Further study of a treatment-by-sex interaction is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00095823 and NCT00095758.

Aripiprazole for the treatment of psychoses in institutionalized patients with Alzheimer dementia: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled assessment of three fixed doses.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole for psychosis associated with Alzheimer dementia (AD). METHODS: In this double-blind, multicenter study, 487 institutionalized patients with psychosis associated with AD were randomized to placebo or aripiprazole, 2, 5 or 10 mg/day. Primary efficacy assessment was the mean change from baseline to week 10 on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home (NPI-NH) version Psychosis Subscale score. Secondary measures included NPI-NH Total, Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) Core and Total, and the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) scores. RESULTS: Aripiprazole 10 mg/day showed significantly greater improvements (mean change [2 x SD]) than placebo on the NPI-NH Psychosis Subscale (-6.87 [8.6] versus -5.13 [10.0]; F = 6.29, df = 1, 422, p = 0.013 by analysis of covariance [ANCOVA]); CGI-S (-0.72 [1.8] versus -0.46 [1.6]; F = 4.68, df = 1, 419, p = 0.031 [ANCOVA]); BPRS Total (-7.12 [18.4] versus -4.17 [21.6]; F = 4.72, df = 1, 399, p = 0.030 [ANCOVA]); BPRS Core (-3.07 [6.9] versus -1.74 [7.8]; F = 7.30, df = 1, 407, p = 0.007 [ANCOVA]); CMAI (-10.96 [22.6] versus -6.64 [28.6]; F = 5.23, df = 1, 410, p = 0.023 [ANCOVA]), and NPI-NH Psychosis response rate (65 versus 50%; chi(2) = 5.52, df = 1, p = 0.019 [CMH]). Aripiprazole 5 mg/day showed significant improvements versus placebo on BPRS and CMAI scores. Aripiprazole 2 mg/day was not efficacious. Cerebrovascular adverse events were reported: aripiprazole 2 mg/day, N = 1; 5 mg/day, N = 2; 10 mg/day, N = 4; placebo, N = 0. No deaths in any group (aripiprazole 2 mg/day, 3%; 5 mg/day, 2%; 10 mg/day, 7%; placebo, 3%) were considered to be treatment-related. CONCLUSION: Aripiprazole 10 mg/day was efficacious and safe for psychosis associated with AD, significantly improving psychotic symptoms, agitation, and clinical global impression. However, clinicians should be aware of the safety considerations of atypical antipsychotic uses in this population.

The efficacy and safety of aripiprazole as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole versus placebo as adjunctive treatment to standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who showed an incomplete response to 1 prospective and 1 to 3 historical courses of ADT within the current episode. METHOD: The study comprised a 7- to 28-day screening phase, an 8-week prospective treatment phase, and a 6-week double-blind treatment phase. Patients with DSM-IV-TR-defined MDD were enrolled between June 16, 2004, and April 27, 2006. During prospective treatment, patients received ADT: escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled-release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended-release, each with single-blind, adjunctive placebo. Incomplete responders continued ADT and were randomly assigned to double-blind, adjunctive placebo or adjunctive aripiprazole (2-15 mg/day with fluoxetine or paroxetine; 2-20 mg/day with all others). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from end of prospective treatment to end of double-blind treatment (week 14, last observation carried forward) in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score (analysis of covariance). RESULTS: A total of 178 patients were randomly assigned to adjunctive placebo and 184 to adjunctive aripiprazole. Baseline demographics were similar between groups (mean MADRS total score of 26.0). Mean change in MADRS total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (-8.8) than adjunctive placebo (-5.8; p < .001). Adverse events (AEs) that occurred in > or = 10% of patients with adjunctive placebo or adjunctive aripiprazole were akathisia (4.5% vs. 23.1%), headache (10.8% vs. 6.0%), and restlessness (3.4% vs. 14.3%). Discontinuations due to AEs were low with adjunctive placebo (1.7%) and adjunctive aripiprazole (2.2%); only 1 adjunctive aripiprazole-treated patient discontinued due to akathisia. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MDD who showed an incomplete response to ADT, adjunctive aripiprazole was efficacious and well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00095823.

Aripiprazole for the treatment of psychosis in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of aripiprazole, a novel antipsychotic, with placebo in patients with psychosis associated with Alzheimer's Disease (AD). This 10-week, double-blind, multicenter study randomized 208 outpatients (mean age, 81.5 years) with AD-associated psychosis to aripiprazole (n = 106) or placebo (n = 102). The initial aripiprazole dose of 2 mg/d was titrated upwards (5, 10, or 15 mg/d) according to efficacy and tolerability. Evaluations included Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Psychosis subscale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), adverse event (AE) reports, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) rating scales, and body weight. Overall, 172 patients (83%) completed the study. Mean aripiprazole dose at end point was 10.0 mg/d. The NPI Psychosis subscale score showed improvements in both groups (aripiprazole, -6.55; placebo, -5.52; P = 0.17 at end point). Aripiprazole-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements from baseline in BPRS Psychosis and BPRS Core subscale scores at end point compared with placebo. AEs were generally mild to moderate in severity and included (aripiprazole vs. placebo): urinary tract infection (8% vs. 12%), accidental injury (8% vs. 5%), somnolence (8% vs. 1%), and bronchitis (6% vs. 3%). Somnolence was mild and not associated with falls or accidental injury. There were no significant differences from placebo in EPS scores, or clinically significant ECG abnormalities, vital signs, or weight. In conclusion, aripiprazole showed similar improvements to placebo in psychotic symptoms as assessed by NPI Psychosis subscale scores, but significantly greater effects on BPRS Core and Psychosis assessments in community-living AD patients with psychosis. Aripiprazole was safe and well tolerated in this patient population.

Effectiveness of aripiprazole v. haloperidol in acute bipolar mania: double-blind, randomised, comparative 12-week trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite several treatmentoptions, adherenceto therapy is poor in patients with bipolar disorder. AIMS: A double-blind, controlled comparison of aripiprazole and haloperidol in patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes. METHOD: Patients (n=347) were randomised to receive aripiprazole or haloperidol in this 12-week, multicentre study. The primary outcome measure was the number of patients in response (greater, similar 50% improvement from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale score) and receiving therapy at week 12. RESULTS: At week 12, significantly more patients taking aripiprazole (49.7%) were in response and receiving therapy compared with those taking haloperidol (28.4%; P < 0.001). Continuation rates differed markedly between treatments (week 12: aripiprazole, 50.9%; haloperidol, 29.1%). Extrapyramidal adverse events were more frequent with haloperidol than aripiprazole (62.7% v. 24.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole showed superior levels of response and tolerability to haloperidol in the treatment of an acute manic episode for up to 12 weeks.