Relationship Between Peak Troponin Values and Long-Term Ischemic Events Among Medically Managed Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between troponin level and outcomes among patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS is established, but the relationship of troponin level with long-term outcomes among medically managed non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients receiving contemporary antiplatelet therapy is inadequately defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 6763 medically managed non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients randomized in TRILOGY ACS (Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes) (prasugrel versus clopidogrel), we examined relationships between categories of peak troponin/upper limit of normal (ULN) ratio within 48 hours of the index ACS event (≈4.5 days before randomization) and 30-month outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; and all-cause death). Patients with peak troponin levels <1×ULN were younger, were more often women, and had lower GRACE risk scores than those in other troponin groups. Those with ratios ≥5×ULN were more frequently smokers but less often had prior myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention. Diabetes mellitus prevalence, body mass index, serum creatinine, and hemoglobin were similar across groups. For all end points, statistically significant differences in 30-month event rates were observed between peak troponin categories. The relationship was linear for 30-month mortality (<1×ULN, n=1849 [6.2%]; 1 to <3×ULN, n=1203 [9.6%]; 3 to <5×ULN, n=581 [10.8%]; and ≥5×ULN, n=3405 [12.8%]) but plateaued for composite end points beyond peak troponin values ≥3×ULN. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity in treatment effect by peak troponin ratio for any end point. CONCLUSIONS: Among medically managed non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients selected for medical management, there was a graded relationship between increasing peak troponin and long-term ischemic events but no heterogeneity of treatment effect for prasugrel versus clopidogrel according to peak troponin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00699998.

Impact of prasugrel pretreatment and timing of coronary artery bypass grafting on clinical outcomes of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: From the A Comparison of Prasugrel at PCI or Time of Diagnosis of Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (ACCOAST) study.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated impact of timing of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and prasugrel pretreatment in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing CABG in the ACCOAST study. METHODS: Of 4033 enrolled patients, 314 (7.8%) underwent isolated CABG through 30 days. Primary efficacy end point for this analysis was any cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor bailout through 30 days. RESULTS: More CABG versus percutaneous coronary intervention or medically managed patients were men, diabetic, or had peripheral arterial disease. Per randomization, 157 of 314 patients received a 30-mg prasugrel loading dose before CABG, and 157 of 314 received placebo. Patients were stratified by tertile of time from randomization to CABG: <2.98 days (n = 104), ≥2.98 and <6.95 days (n = 106), and ≥6.95 days (n = 104). Primary end point occurred in 12.5%, 4.7%, and 4.8%, respectively (<2.98 days vs other tertiles, hazard ratio [HR] = 2.80; P = .011). Similarly, the rate of all TIMI major bleeding was highest in the lowest tertile (26.0% vs 10.4% and 4.8%; P < .001), but no difference in all-cause death was observed through 30 days (3.9% vs 1.9% and 1.9%; P = .30). Time from randomization to CABG (HR = 0.84 for each day delay), left main disease (HR = 1.76), region of enrollment (Non-Eastern Europe vs Eastern Europe; HR = 3.83), but not prasugrel pretreatment and baseline troponin ≥3× upper limit of normal, were independent predictors of combined 30-day end point of all-cause death/myocardial infarction/stroke/TIMI major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In ACCOAST, early (<2.98 days) surgical revascularization carried increased risk of bleeding and ischemic complications without affecting all-cause mortality through 30 days. Baseline troponin and prasugrel pretreatment did not impact ischemic clinical outcomes.

Predictors of bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with prasugrel.

BACKGROUND: When considering antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), it is essential to balance benefits (less thrombotic/ischaemic events) versus bleeding risks related to intense platelet inhibition via antagonism of P2Y12 receptors. This analysis aimed to identify predictors of bleeding events among A Comparison of Prasugrel at the Time of PCI or as Pretreatment at the Time of Diagnosis in Patients with NSTEACS (ACCOAST) study population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ACCOAST study randomised 4033 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) to (A) a 30 mg prasugrel loading dose (LD) followed by coronary angiography with an additional 30 mg prasugrel at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or (B) a placebo LD followed by a 60 mg prasugrel at the time of PCI. Patients received standard of care, including use of aspirin. Independent predictors of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding not related to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) within 7 days were assessed using stepwise Cox proportional model for time to first occurrence of the event. Non-CABG-related TIMI major or minor bleeding was similarly analysed. Non-CABG-related TIMI major bleeding occurred in 36 (0.9%) patients, and TIMI major or minor bleeding occurred in 81 (2.0%) patients. Independent predictors for TIMI major bleeding alone were pretreatment with prasugrel LD (HR 3.02; 95% CI 1.42 to 6.43), femoral access (HR 2.45; 95% CI 1.11 to 5.38), female sex (HR 2.57; 95% CI 1.32 to 5.00), placement of >1 stent (HR 2.50; 95% CI 1.26 to 4.95) and age (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09). Pretreatment with prasugrel LD (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.84 to 5.07), femoral access (HR 3.06; 95% CI 1.74 to 5.38), female sex (HR 2.62; 95% CI 1.67 to 4.12), performed PCI (HR 2.21; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.99), therapy with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.06 to 3.33) and age (increased bleed per year of age HR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06) were independent predictors of TIMI major or minor bleeding through 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment, age, gender and procedural variables predicted bleeding risk in patients with NSTEMI. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT01015287.

Applying novel methods to assess clinical outcomes: insights from the TRILOGY ACS trial.

AIMS: Several methods provide new insights into understanding clinical trial composite endpoints, using both conventional and novel methods. The TRILOGY ACS trial is used as a contemporary example to prospectively compare these methods side by side. METHODS AND RESULTS: The traditional time-to-first-event, Andersen-Gill recurrent events method, win ratio, and a weighted composite endpoint (WCE) are compared using the randomized, active-control TRILOGY ACS trial. This trial had a neutral result and randomized 9326 patients managed without coronary revascularization within 10 days of their acute coronary syndrome to receive either prasugrel or clopidogrel and followed them for up to 30 months. The traditional composite, win ratio, and WCE demonstrated no significant survival advantage for prasugrel, whereas the Andersen-Gill method demonstrated a statistical advantage for prasugrel [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72-0.97)]. The traditional composite used 73% of total patient events; 40% of these were derived from the death events. The win ratio used 66% of total events; deaths comprised 57% of these. Both Andersen-Gill and WCE methods used all events in all participants; however, with the Andersen-Gill method, death comprised 41% of the proportion of events, whereas with the WCE method, death comprised 64% of events. CONCLUSION: This study addresses the relative efficiency of various methods for assessing clinical trial events comprising the composite endpoint. The methods accounting for all events, in particular those incorporating their clinical relevance, appear most advantageous, and may be useful in interpreting future trials. This clinical and statistical advantage is especially evident with long-term follow-up where multiple non-fatal events are more common. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00699998.

Effect of prasugrel pre-treatment strategy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for NSTEMI: the ACCOAST-PCI study.

BACKGROUND: After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), treatment with a P2Y12 antagonist with aspirin is recommended for 1 year. OBJECTIVES: The oral P2Y12 antagonists ticagrelor and prasugrel have higher recommendations than clopidogrel, but it is unknown if administration before the start of PCI is beneficial. METHODS: In the randomized, double-blind ACCOAST (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) trial, 4,033 patients were diagnosed with NSTEMI and 68.7% underwent PCI; 1,394 received pre-treatment with prasugrel (30-mg loading dose), and 1,376 received placebo. At the time of PCI, patients who received pre-treatment with prasugrel received an additional 30-mg dose of prasugrel, and those who received placebo received a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel. Primary efficacy was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa bailout through 7 days from randomization. Investigators captured the presence of thrombus on initial angiography and during PCI. RESULTS: The incidence of the primary endpoint through 7 days from randomization in the pre-treatment group versus the no pre-treatment group was 13.1% versus 13.1% (p = 0.93). Pre-treatment with prasugrel was not associated with decreases in any ischemic event, including total mortality. Patients with thrombus on angiography had a 3-fold higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients without thrombus. There was no impact of pre-treatment with prasugrel on the presence of thrombus before PCI or on occurrence of stent thrombosis after PCI. There was a 3-fold increase in all non-coronary artery bypass graft Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding and a 6-fold increase in non-coronary artery bypass graft life-threatening bleeding with pre-treatment with prasugrel; the same trends persisted in patients who had radial or femoral access even with use of a closure device. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support deferring treatment with prasugrel until a decision is made about revascularization in patients with NSTEMI undergoing angiography within 48 h of admission. (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [ACCOAST]; NCT01015287).

Platelet function during extended prasugrel and clopidogrel therapy for patients with ACS treated without revascularization: the TRILOGY ACS platelet function substudy.

CONTEXT: The relationship of platelet function testing measurements with outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) initially managed medically without revascularization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the differences and evaluate clinical outcomes associated with platelet reactivity among patients with ACS treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Patients with medically managed unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were enrolled in the TRILOGY ACS trial (2008 to 2011) comparing clopidogrel vs prasugrel. Of 9326 participants, 27.5% were included in a platelet function substudy: 1286 treated with prasugrel and 1278 treated with clopidogrel. INTERVENTIONS: Aspirin with either prasugrel (10 or 5 mg/d) or clopidogrel (75 mg/d); those 75 years or older and younger than 75 years but who weighed less than 60 kg received a 5-mg prasugrel maintenance dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Platelet reactivity, measured in P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs), was performed at baseline, at 2 hours, and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months after randomization. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke through 30 months. RESULTS: Among participants younger than 75 years and weighing 60 kg or more, the median PRU values at 30 days were 64 (interquartile range [IQR], 33-128) in the prasugrel group vs 200 (IQR, 141-260) in the clopidogrel group (P < .001), a difference that persisted through all subsequent time points. For participants younger than 75 years and weighing less than 60 kg, the median 30-day PRU values were 139 (IQR, 86-203) for the prasugrel group vs 209 (IQR, 148-283) for the clopidogrel group (P < .001), and for participants 75 years or older, the median PRU values were 164 (IQR, 105-216) for the prasugrel group vs 222 (IQR, 148-268) for the clopidogrel group (P < .001). At 30 months the rate of the primary efficacy end point was 17.2% (160 events) in the prasugrel group vs 18.9% (180 events) in the clopidogrel group (P = .29). There were no significant differences in the continuous distributions of 30-day PRU values for participants with a primary efficacy end point event after 30 days (n = 214) compared with participants without an event (n = 1794; P = .07) and no significant relationship between the occurence of the primary efficacy end point and continuous PRU values (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for increase of 60 PRUs, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .44). Similar findings were observed with 30-day PRU cut points used to define high on-treatment platelet reactivity-PRU more than 208 (adjusted HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52, P = .28) and PRU more than 230 (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.61; P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ACS without ST-segment elevation and initially managed without revascularization, prasugrel was associated with lower platelet reactivity than clopidogrel, irrespective of age, weight, and dose. Among those in the platelet substudy, no significant differences existed between prasugrel vs clopidogrel in the occurence of the primary efficacy end point through 30 months and no significant association existed between platelet reactivity and occurrence of ischemic outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00699998.

Prasugrel versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes without revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The effect of intensified platelet inhibition for patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who do not undergo revascularization has not been delineated. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, in a primary analysis involving 7243 patients under the age of 75 years receiving aspirin, we evaluated up to 30 months of treatment with prasugrel (10 mg daily) versus clopidogrel (75 mg daily). In a secondary analysis involving 2083 patients 75 years of age or older, we evaluated 5 mg of prasugrel versus 75 mg of clopidogrel. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 17 months, the primary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke among patients under the age of 75 years occurred in 13.9% of the prasugrel group and 16.0% of the clopidogrel group (hazard ratio in the prasugrel group, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.05; P=0.21). Similar results were observed in the overall population. The prespecified analysis of multiple recurrent ischemic events (all components of the primary end point) suggested a lower risk for prasugrel among patients under the age of 75 years (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00; P=0.04). Rates of severe and intracranial bleeding were similar in the two groups in all age groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the frequency of nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events, except for a higher frequency of heart failure in the clopidogrel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.).

Study design and rationale of a comparison of prasugrel and clopidogrel in medically managed patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the TaRgeted platelet Inhibition to cLarify the Optimal strateGy to medicallY manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial.

Practice guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) regardless of in-hospital management strategy. Prasugrel-a thienopyridine adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist that provides higher and less variable levels of platelet inhibition than clopidogrel-has demonstrated benefit when used to treat ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the optimal approach to antiplatelet therapy for high-risk, medically managed NSTE ACS patients remains uncertain, as these patients have not been the focus of previous clinical trials of these therapies. TRILOGY ACS is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial enrolling approximately 10,300 NSTE ACS patients within 10 days of presentation with either unstable angina or NSTE myocardial infarction who are not intended to undergo revascularization procedures for their index event. Patients will be randomly allocated to prasugrel + aspirin versus clopidogrel + aspirin for a median duration of 18 months. A reduction in the maintenance dose of prasugrel for elderly patients (age >or=75 years) and those with body weight <60 kg is planned. The primary composite efficacy end point will be time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke in patients aged <75 years. If the superiority of prasugrel is established in patients aged <75 years, the treatment arms will then be compared for all subjects (including those aged >or=75 years). TRILOGY ACS is the largest randomized clinical trial to date focusing exclusively on medically managed NSTE ACS patients and will provide important information regarding the optimal approach to oral antiplatelet therapy for this high-risk, understudied population.

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.

The efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in the treatment of anxious versus non-anxious depression: a post-hoc analysis of an open-label outpatient study.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the efficacy and tolerability of 12 weeks of open-label duloxetine in adult outpatients with anxious versus non-anxious depression. METHODS: Participants in a major depressive episode (N=249) began duloxetine treatment at 30 or 60 mg daily for the first week, followed by up to 11 weeks of flexibly dosed duloxetine (60, 90, or 120 mg daily). Efficacy measures included HAMD17, HAMA, and CGI-S. Safety and tolerability were assessed by early discontinuation and adverse event rates. Anxious depression was defined by a HAMD17 Anxiety/Somatization Factor score>or=7. RESULTS: Duloxetine treatment was associated with a significantly greater reduction in total HAMD17 scores and HAMD17 Anxiety/Somatization Factor scores among patients with anxious depression compared to non-anxious depression. Differences in CGI-S and HAMA scores at the end of the trial between groups were not statistically significant. Remission and response rates at endpoint were similar between groups, but anxious depressives had a significantly shorter median time to response. Discontinuation rates due to any reason, discontinuation due to adverse events, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups, except for the significantly greater occurrence of influenza in anxious depressives. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine's efficacy in anxious depression was somewhat superior to non-anxious depression; tolerability was comparable between groups.

Outcomes for Latin American versus White patients suffering from acute mania in a randomized, double-blind trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol.

Data from a published double-blind randomized trial comparing olanzapine versus haloperidol in acute mania were used to address the response and tolerability of Latin American patients. Primary efficacy end point was the remission rate (Young Mania Rating Scale score

Failed efficacy of fluoxetine in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: results of a fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study.

A multicenter, double-blind, 12-week, placebo-controlled trial of 411 randomized patients, predominantly women diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, failed to show a difference between either dose of fluoxetine treatment and placebo. The mean changes from baseline (SD) measured by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale scores were -42.9 (23.1), -42.8 (27.9), and -36.6 (25.7) in the 20-mg fluoxetine, 40-mg fluoxetine, and placebo arms, respectively. Placebo response rate was substantially higher in this study than in a previously published fluoxetine trial of posttraumatic stress disorder.

A 7-week, randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination versus lamotrigine in the treatment of bipolar I depression.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) for treatment of acute bipolar I depression compared with lamotrigine. METHOD: The 7-week, acute phase of a randomized, double-blind study compared OFC (6/25, 6/50, 12/25, or 12/50 mg/day; N = 205) with lamotrigine ([LMG] titrated to 200 mg/day; N = 205) in patients with DSM-IV-diagnosed bipolar I disorder, depressed. The study was conducted from November 2003 to August 2004. RESULTS: Completion rates were similar between treatments (OFC, 66.8% vs. LMG, 65.4%; p = .835). OFC-treated patients had significantly greater improvement than lamotrigine-treated patients in change from baseline across the 7-week treatment period on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (primary outcome) (p = .002, effect size = 0.26), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (p = .002, effect size = 0.24), and Young Mania Rating Scale total scores (p = .001, effect size = 0.24). Response rates did not significantly differ between groups when defined as > or = 50% reduction in MADRS score (OFC, 68.8% vs. LMG, 59.7%; p = .073). Time to response was significantly shorter for OFC-treated patients (median days [95% CI] = OFC, 17 [14 to 22] vs. LMG, 23 [21 to 34]; p = .010). There was a significant difference in incidence of "suicidal and self-injurious behavior" adverse events (OFC, 0.5% vs. LMG, 3.4%; p = .037). Somnolence, increased appetite, dry mouth, sedation, weight gain, and tremor occurred more frequently (p < .05) in OFC-treated patients than lamotrigine-treated patients. Weight, total cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were significantly elevated in OFC-treated patients compared with lamotrigine-treated patients (all p < or = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acute bipolar I depression had statistically significantly greater improvement in depressive and manic symptoms, more treatment-emergent adverse events, greater weight gain, and some elevated metabolic factors with OFC than lamotrigine. Treatment differences were of modest size.

Clinical relevance of depressive symptom improvement in bipolar I depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: Gaps remain between rating scale changes obtained in a clinical trial and what those results mean in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relevance of results from a clinical trial we examined the relationship between rating scale measures and the clinicians' assessment of illness severity. METHODS: Data from a randomized double-blind 8-week study of bipolar I depression were examined post hoc in patients who received placebo (PLA, n = 355), olanzapine (n = 351) (OLZ, 5 to 20 mg/d), or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (n = 82) (OFC, 6 and 25, 6 and 50, or 12 and 50 mg/d). Principal components analysis identified related symptoms (factors) from Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item scores. Regression analysis examined baseline to endpoint changes in factor scores and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores. Mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis assessed differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: MADRS factors identified were: sadness, negative thoughts, detachment, and neurovegetative symptoms. Factor and CGI scores were significantly reduced from baseline to endpoint (LOCF) in the combination therapy group as compared with placebo (p < .01). Changes in factor scores were highly correlated (p < .001) with changes in the CGI. Over 80% of this treatment effect was attributable to indirect effects of improvements in the MADRS factors, the remaining difference could not be explained even when changes in the YMRS and HAMA scores were included in the analytical model. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in MADRS factors were closely aligned with the clinician's assessment of overall depression severity, which may suggest a high degree of clinical relevance for differences observed between treatments.

Fluoxetine 40-60 mg versus fluoxetine 20 mg in the treatment of children and adolescents with a less-than-complete response to nine-week treatment with fluoxetine 10-20 mg: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare fluoxetine dosage titration to 40-60 mg/day with fixed fluoxetine 20-mg/day treatment for an additional 10 weeks in pediatric outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had not met protocol-defined response criteria after 9-week acute fluoxetine treatment. METHODS: Patients unresponsive (less than or equal to 30% decrease in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised [CDRS-R] score) after 9-week fluoxetine treatment were randomly reassigned to continue at 20 mg/day or to increase to 40 mg/day. After 4 weeks, patients unresponsive to 40 mg/day could receive 60 mg/day. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (29) patients, 9-17 years of age, received fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day (n = 14) or 20 mg/day (n = 15). At the conclusion of this study phase, 10 patients (71%) on 40-60 mg/day met the response criteria, versus 5 patients (36%) on 20 mg/day (p = 0.128). Mean CDRS-R scores improved in both treatment groups (fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day, -9.4; fluoxetine 20 mg/day, -1.5; p = 0.099). Adverse events were similar in both groups. However, this study phase was statistically underpowered for detecting differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: More than two thirds of patients whose dosage was increased responded within 10 weeks, suggesting dose escalation may benefit some patients. Approximately one third of patients unresponsive to initial treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg responded to this fixed dosage within another 10 weeks. Fluoxetine 20-60 mg/day was well tolerated.

Clinical features of bipolar depression versus major depressive disorder in large multicenter trials.

OBJECTIVE: Failure to recognize bipolar disorder in patients who experience a major depressive episode may lead to inappropriate treatment and poorer outcomes. Clinical features that could distinguish bipolar from unipolar depression would facilitate more appropriate treatment selection. METHOD: The authors used data from nonpsychotic outpatients participating in three large multicenter clinical trials conducted in the United States for the treatment of major depressive episodes to compare 477 subjects with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and 1,074 with major depressive disorder. RESULTS: Bipolar depression was associated with family history of bipolar disorder, an earlier age at onset, a greater previous number of depressive episodes, and eight individual symptom items on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. Fears were more common in patients with bipolar disorder, whereas sadness; insomnia; intellectual (cognitive), somatic (muscular), respiratory, genitourinary complaints; and depressed behavior were more common in patients with unipolar depression. A logistic regression model correctly classified 86.9% of the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar depression and major depressive disorder exhibit subtle differences in presentation, which may help guide the initial diagnosis.