A meta-analysis of the consistency of atomoxetine treatment effects in pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder from 15 clinical trials across four geographic regions.

OBJECTIVE: Atomoxetine has been approved as a treatment for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States, throughout Europe, and in other countries. This meta-analysis was to assess the consistency of the treatment effect of atomoxetine across four global geographic regions. METHODS: Data from 15 acute, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were pooled (2 in Asia, 4 in Europe, 8 in North America, and 1 in Russia), yielding 2569 pediatric patients with ADHD. Improvements during 6-10 weeks of atomoxetine treatment were evaluated using the ADHD Rating Scale-IV or the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Scale-Revised. Consistency across regions was assessed by an interaction test and Higgins I(2). Consistency of one region versus other regions was assessed by effect sizes of individual regions and pairwise differences. RESULTS: Patient demographics were generally similar across regions. More patients from Asia met diagnostic criteria for ADHD inattentive subtype and fewer for combined subtype compared with patients from Europe, North America, or Russia. Asian patients had a lower mean baseline ADHD total score and mean hyperactivity/impulsivity subscore. Treatment effects showed marginal inconsistency and moderate heterogeneity among the regions (percentage of patients achieving a 40% decrease from baseline ADHD scores, atomoxetine versus placebo: Asia 39.6%, 24.0%; Europe 40.2%, 12.1%; North America 45.3%, 21.7%; Russia 54.2%, 33.3%). Inconsistency was observed primarily in Asia versus the other regions. Completion rates with atomoxetine were higher in Asia and Russia (94.4% and 94.3%, respectively) than in Europe (84.3%) or North America (80.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine was demonstrated as an effective treatment for ADHD in 15 clinical trials from four global regions. The current meta-analysis has revealed a degree of heterogeneity in treatment efficacy across regions, most notably in the comparison of Asian patients relative to those from the other regions.

Treatment-completion rates with olanzapine long-acting injection versus risperidone long-acting injection in a 12-month, open-label treatment of schizophrenia: indirect, exploratory comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in long-acting injection formulation. Due to the absence of head-to-head studies comparing olanzapine long-acting injection and risperidone long-acting injection, this study was intended to make exploratory, indirect, cross-study comparisons between the long-acting formulations of these two atypical antipsychotics in their effectiveness in treating patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Indirect, cross-study comparisons between olanzapine long-acting injection and risperidone long-acting injection used 12-month treatment-completion rates, because discontinuation of an antipsychotic for any cause is a recognized proxy measure of the medication's effectiveness in treating schizophrenia. Following a systematic review of the literature, two indirect comparisons were conducted using open-label, single-cohort studies in which subjects were stabilized on an antipsychotic medication before depot initiation. The first analysis compared olanzapine long-acting injection (one study) with pooled data from nine identified risperidone long-acting injection studies. The second analysis was a "sensitivity analysis," using only the most similar studies, one for olanzapine long-acting injection and one for risperidone long-acting injection, which shared near-identical study designs and involved study cohorts with near-identical patient characteristics. Pearson Chi-square tests assessed group differences on treatment-completion rates. RESULTS: Comparison of olanzapine long-acting injection data (931 patients) with the pooled data from the nine risperidone long-acting injection studies (3950 patients) provided almost identical 12-month treatment-completion rates (72.7% versus 72.4%; P = 0.87). When the two most similar studies were compared, the 12-month completion rate for olanzapine long-acting injection was significantly higher than for risperidone long-acting injection (81.3% versus 47.0%; P < 0.001). However, any conclusions drawn from this comparison may be limited by differences in the studies' geographic catchment areas. CONCLUSION: Using treatment-completion rates as a proxy measure of medication effectiveness, olanzapine long-acting injection did not differ significantly from risperidone long-acting injection when including all eligible studies. However, the findings of this exploratory analysis should be interpreted with caution, considering the methodological limitations of these indirect, cross-study comparisons.

Comparison of patients undergoing switching versus augmentation of antipsychotic medications during treatment for schizophrenia.

It is often difficult to determine whether a patient may best benefit by augmenting their current medication or switching them to another. This post-hoc analysis compares patients' clinical and functional profiles at the time their antipsychotic medications were either switched or augmented. Adult outpatients receiving oral antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia were assessed during a 12-month international observational study. Clinical and functional measures were assessed at the time of first treatment switch/augmentation (0-14 days prior) and compared between Switched and Augmented patient groups. Due to low numbers of patients providing such data, interpretations are based on effect sizes. Data at the time of change were available for 87 patients: 53 Switched and 34 Augmented. Inadequate response was the primary reason for treatment change in both groups, whereas lack of adherence was more prevalent in the Switched group (26.4% vs 8.8%). Changes in clinical severity from study initiation to medication change were similar, as indicated by Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scores. However, physical and mental component scores of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey improved in the Augmented group, but worsened in the Switched group. These findings suggest that the patient's worsening or lack of meaningful improvement prompts clinicians to switch antipsychotic medications, whereas when patients show some improvement, clinicians may be more likely to try bolstering the improvements through augmentation. Current findings are consistent with physicians' stated reasons for switching versus augmenting antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. Confirmation of these findings requires further research.

Factors associated with adherence to treatment with olanzapine and other atypical antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES: Poor treatment response is an important factor contributing to lack of treatment adherence. The goals of this research were to determine whether improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) symptom domains predict the likelihood of staying on treatment and whether differential responses to treatment with various atypical antipsychotics in specific symptom domains account for differences in discontinuation rates or treatment adherence. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from 5 randomized, double-blind, 24- to 28-week clinical trials in 1103 olanzapine-treated and 1090 risperidone-, quetiapine-, ziprasidone-, or aripiprazole-treated adult patients with schizophrenia. The 5 PANSS factors were tested as potential predictors of treatment adherence for all treatment groups combined. Treatment differences in the 5 PANSS factors and individual items were assessed between olanzapine and the other atypical antipsychotics combined. Secondary analyses repeated for the 21 Heinrichs Quality of Life Scale (QLS) items. RESULTS: Improvement in PANSS positive factor was the strongest predictor of treatment adherence, irrespective of medication (based on standardized scores, hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], +1.40 to +1.79; P < .001). Improvement in PANSS hostility (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, +1.11 to +1.37; P < .001) and depressive (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, +1.05 to +1.27; P = .002) factors was also a significant predictor; negative and disorganized thoughts factors were not. All QLS items had significant predictive effects. Olanzapine-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements than all other groups at week 24 on all 5 PANSS factors (P = .028 for negative; P < .001 for all others) and on 3 QLS items. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in positive symptoms, regardless of treatment, followed by significant improvement in hostility and depressive symptoms, may best predict treatment adherence. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvements in these specific symptoms than patients treated with the other atypical antipsychotics examined. These findings may further explain why olanzapine-treated patients continue treatment more often.

Responses to antipsychotic therapy among patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and either predominant or prominent negative symptoms.

Patients with schizophrenia who have predominant negative symptoms are often considered less responsive to treatment. This analysis of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder compares changes in symptom severity between those with predominant versus merely prominent negative symptoms. Prominent negative symptoms were defined by a baseline score of ≥4 on at least 3, or ≥5 on at least 2, of the 7 Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative subscale items. Predominant negative symptoms were defined by the foregoing plus a PANSS positive score of <19, a Barnes Akathisia score of <2, a Simpson-Angus score of <4, and a Calgary Depressive Scale score of <9. Adult patients with schizophrenia (n=227) or schizoaffective disorder (n=116) received either olanzapine (10-20mg/day, n=169) or quetiapine (300-700mg/day, n=174) for up to 24weeks. Data for both medications were pooled. Of the 343 patients enrolled in the study, 34.7% met the criteria for predominant negative symptoms, the remaining 65.3% being characterized only by their prominent negative symptoms. Changes in the severity of negative symptoms in both patient types largely followed similar trajectories during treatment, as reflected both in Marder PANSS negative subscale scores and in the Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms total and domain scores. Patients with either predominant or prominent negative symptoms therefore appear to respond similarly to atypical antipsychotic treatment. This distinction, incorporating an evaluation of the presence of positive, affective, and extrapyramidal symptoms, may therefore not have prognostic implications for the responsiveness of patients' negative symptoms to treatment.

Comparison of metabolic changes in patients with schizophrenia during randomized treatment with intramuscular olanzapine long-acting injection versus oral olanzapine.

Metabolic changes were examined in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with either oral olanzapine or olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI). Data were collected from patients who had been stabilized on oral olanzapine (10, 15, or 20 mg/day) for ≥4 weeks and then randomized to either continued olanzapine oral treatment (n = 322) or LAI (n = 599; 150 mg/2 weeks, 405 mg/4 weeks, or 300 mg/2 weeks) for up to 24 weeks. Mean and categorical changes in metabolic parameters were analyzed. Mean changes in weight, glucose, and most lipids were generally not significantly different between treatment groups. Weight changes over time followed similar patterns and were not significantly different at endpoint between the two treatment-formulation groups. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased significantly less among olanzapine LAI-treated patients. Percentages of patients with potentially clinically significant changes in blood glucose and lipid concentrations were similar for the two treatments. Percentages of patients experiencing adverse events related to weight, diabetes, or dyslipidemia were also not significantly different between treatments. Metabolic changes in patients with schizophrenia appeared generally similar during treatment with oral olanzapine or olanzapine LAI.

Patient perspectives on antipsychotic treatments and their association with clinical outcomes.

This analysis examined patient-reported attitudes toward antipsychotic medication and the relationship of these attitudes with clinical outcomes and pharmacotherapy adherence. The analysis included three randomized, double-blind studies in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition and randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine 5-20 mg/day or another antipsychotic (haloperidol 2-20 mg/day, risperidone 2-10 mg/day, or ziprasidone 80-160 mg/day). Patient-reported improvements were significantly greater for olanzapine (n = 488) versus other treatments (haloperidol n = 145, risperidone n = 158, or ziprasidone n = 271) on multiple Drug Attitude Inventory items. A positive attitude toward medication reported by patients was significantly associated with greater clinical improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and lower discontinuation rates. These results suggest that patients' perceptions of treatment benefits are associated with objective clinical measures, including reduction of symptom severity and lower discontinuation rates. Furthermore, olanzapine may be associated with more positive treatment attitudes. These findings may contribute to a better understanding of reasons for treatment adherence from patients' own perspectives.

Atomoxetine augmentation of cholinesterase inhibitor therapy in patients with Alzheimer disease: 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-trial study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy and tolerability of atomoxetine (ATX) in improving cognitive performance of patients with Alzheimer dementia. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo (PLA)-controlled, parallel-groups study, starting with a 5-33-day screening and evaluation period, followed by a 6-month treatment period. SETTING: Eight independent or academic outpatient clinics in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Male or female patients, aged 55 years and older, with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease (Mini-Mental State Examination score between 10 and 26) at baseline. INTERVENTION: ATX (25-80 mg/day) or PLA for up to 6 months, added to ongoing cholinesterase-inhibitor therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Portion (ADAS-Cog, primary measure), Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change score at end point, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Inventory-Activities of Daily Living Inventory total score, safety measures (secondary measures). RESULTS: Patients' (N = 92) scores on assessments of cognitive function, global clinical impression, and neuropsychiatric symptoms were not significantly different between treatment groups. Neither group showed significant changes from baseline on the primary measure of efficacy, the ADAS-Cog. The ATX group showed a significantly greater increase of heart rate, and the mean increase in diastolic blood pressure and decrease in weight differed significantly from the decrease in pressure and weight increase in the PLA group. No other clinically meaningful safety results were obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of ATX to ongoing cholinesterase-inhibitor therapy was generally well tolerated but did not significantly improve cognitive function.

Comparison of symptomatic versus functional changes in children and adolescents with ADHD during randomized, double-blind treatment with psychostimulants, atomoxetine, or placebo.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was designed to determine the relationship between reduction of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and improvement in functioning by examining short-term changes in functional and symptomatic scores in children and adolescents with ADHD. METHODS: Search of atomoxetine's clinical trial database identified four studies involving a symptomatic measure, the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version:Investigator-administered and -scored (ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv), and a functional measure, the Life Participation Scale for ADHD (LPS). RESULTS: Correlation analysis revealed a moderate-to-strong association between changes in the LPS total versus ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv total (r: -.68). The LPS Self-control subscale showed higher correlations than the Happy/Social subscale with the symptomatic measures. Regression analysis also showed high sensitivity for functional measures to changes in symptom severity. Stratified analysis of mean changes in ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv scores corresponding to standardized changes in LPS functional scores indicated that a threshold reduction of 16-18 points on the ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv total score was needed for functional improvements to become evident. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects' symptomatic improvements appear to be reflected in improvements in their social and behavioral function as measured by the LPS. These initial findings warrant verification by replication with other outcome measures.

Atomoxetine treatment of ADHD in children with comorbid Tourette syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines changes in severity of tics and ADHD during atomoxetine treatment in ADHD patients with Tourette syndrome (TS). METHOD: Subjects (7-17 years old) with ADHD (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV) and TS were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with placebo (n = 56) or atomoxetine (0.5-1.5 mg/kg/day, n = 61) for approximately 18 weeks. RESULTS: Atomoxetine subjects showed significantly greater improvement on ADHD symptom measures. Treatment was also associated with significantly greater reduction of tic severity on two of three measures. Significant increases were seen in mean pulse rate and rates of treatment-emergent nausea, decreased appetite, and decreased body weight. No other clinically relevant treatment differences were observed in any other vital sign, adverse event, laboratory parameter, or electrocardiographic measure. CONCLUSION: Atomoxetine is efficacious for treatment of ADHD and its use appears well tolerated in ADHD patients with comorbid TS.

CYP2D6 metabolizer status and atomoxetine dosing in children and adolescents with ADHD.

To determine whether physicians can adequately titrate atomoxetine without knowing genotype status for hepatic cytochrome P450 2D6, we pooled data from two open-label studies of atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Patients were assessed weekly up to 10 weeks and doses titrated for efficacy and tolerability at the discretion of investigators (max. 1.8 mg/kg/d). Mean dose was 0.1 mg/kg/d lower in poor metabolizer (PM) patients (n=87) than extensive metabolizers (EMs, n=1239). PMs demonstrated marginally better efficacy on the ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv and had comparable safety profiles, except for a 4.0-bpm greater increase in mean pulse rate and a 1.0-kg greater weight loss. Changes from baseline in Fridericia QTc did not differ between groups or correlate with dose in PMs. Results suggest genotyping is unnecessary during routine clinical management, because investigators were able to dose atomoxetine to comparable efficacy and safety levels in EMs and PMs without knowledge of genotype metabolizer status.

Effects of atomoxetine on growth in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder following up to five years of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects on growth of long-term pharmacological treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we present findings from an ongoing 5-year study of the efficacy and safety of treatment with atomoxetine. METHODS: North American patients, 6-17 years old at study entry (N = 1,312) and with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,4th edition (DSM-IV) ADHD, were studied under open-label atomoxetine treatment. Sixty-one were studied up to 5 years. RESULTS: After 1 month's treatment, patients weighed less than expected from their starting percentiles relative to population norms, with a maximum shortfall at 15 months and a return to expected weight by 36 months. Patients were slightly shorter than expected after 12 months, reaching a maximum shortfall at 18 months and returning to expected height by 24 months. Patients in the top quartile for body mass index (BMI) or weight at baseline, and those in the third quartile for height, showed 5-year decreases from expected values. Those below median height at baseline showed increases relative to expected values. CONCLUSIONS: These interim results indicate that continuous atomoxetine treatment for up to 5 years has little or no long-term effect on juvenile growth and final stature for most patients, although persistent decreases from expected may occur in some patients who are larger than average before treatment.

Transition from methylphenidate or amphetamine to atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder--a preliminary tolerability and efficacy study.

BACKGROUND: The primary treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been psychostimulants. Recently developed nonpsychostimulant treatments have allowed certain patients to switch from a psychostimulant to a nonpsychostimulant. However, the outcomes of such switches have not been systematically studied. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to assess treatment tolerance and efficacy during a cross-taper transition from methylphenidate or amphetamine to atomoxetine among children and adolescents with ADHD. METHODS: This pilot study was conducted in patients (aged 6-17 years) with incomplete responses (failure to obtain full reduction/elimination of symptoms) or intolerance of adverse events (AEs) during psychostimulant treatment. Patients continued ongoing psychostimulant treatment during the first week of the study. Transition to atomoxetine began by administering atomoxetine 0.5 mg/kg . d plus full-dose psychostimulant for 1 week, followed in the second week by 1.2 mg/kg . d atomoxetine plus half-dose psychostimulant. Patients remained on 1.2 mg/kg . d atomoxetine monotherapy for the remaining 5 weeks. This stepwise transition was enacted due to the difference in pharmacodynamics between the psychostimulants and atomoxetine. Applying a stepwise cross-titration allowed for better control of ADHD symptoms during the intervening period. Change in ADHD symptoms, as measured by the mean change in the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator-administered and -scored (ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv), was assessed from baseline to end point. RESULTS: Of the 62 subjects enrolled in the study, 39 (62.9%) were diagnosed as ADHD-combined type. Similar proportions were receiving methylphenidate (51.6%) and amphetamine (48.4%). Slightly more wished to switch due to inadequate response (53.2%) than intolerability (46.8%). Nine subjects discontinued at various times during the course of the study (patient or parent/caregiver decision [4], AE [2], protocol violation [2], and lack of efficacy [1]). Mean (SD) ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv total scores (n = 59, last-observation-carried-forward) improved significantly from baseline (visit 2) to an end point (32.1 [10.5] vs 22.6 [14.0]; P < 0.001). Of the 58 subjects answering in the atomoxetine monotherapy phase, 38 (65.5%) reported a preference for atomoxetine treatment over their previous psychostimulant. Tolerability results were as follows: 26 (44.1%) of 59 patients reported >or=1 AE, the most common being somnolence (4 [6.8%]), fatigue (3 [5.1%]), decreased appetite (3 [5.1%]), cough (3 [5.1%]), headache (3 [5.1%]), and contact dermatitis (2 [3.4%]). No clinically severe AEs were reported. Both mean (SD) diastolic (2.4 [7.8] mm Hg; P = 0.031) and systolic (2.4 [7.9] mm Hg; P = 0.029) blood pressures increased significantly from baseline to end point. Electrocardiography revealed a significant increase in mean (SD) heart rate (9.2 [11.6] bpm; P < 0.001) and a corresponding decrease in mean (SD) RR interval (-77.8 [98.2] ms; P < 0.001). Statistically significant, but mild, increases in diastolic pressure and heart rate were observed. CONCLUSION: These children and adolescent patients were successfully switched from methylphenidate or amphetamine to atomoxetine treatment, with resulting improvement in ADHD symptom severity from baseline in this pilot study.

Effect of two different methods of initiating atomoxetine on the adverse event profile of atomoxetine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two different methods for initiating atomoxetine in terms of the incidence of early adverse events. METHOD: Data on atomoxetine treatment-emergent adverse events in youths, ages 6 to 18 years, were analyzed from five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, acute-phase studies. Two studies involve once-daily dosing and titration to 1.2 mg/kg/day over 3 days (fast/once daily, n = 234) and three involve twice-daily dosing and titration to a dose of 1.2 mg/kg/day over at least 2 weeks (slow/twice daily, n = 213). RESULTS: During the first 2 weeks of treatment, fast/once daily titration patients showed higher rates of spontaneously reported adverse events than patients in the slow/twice daily titration group. This included decreased appetite (14.3% versus 8.0%, p = .036) and somnolence (14.3% versus 4.2%, p < .001). Patients in the slow/twice daily group showed higher rates of headache (7.4% versus 16.9%, p = .003). Analysis of the studies' overall acute treatment phases revealed significantly higher rates in the fast/once daily group only for somnolence. No significant differences were seen in completion rates or reasons for discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: When starting atomoxetine, the risk of adverse events within the first few weeks of treatment may be lower if patients are dosed twice daily and titrated to the 1.2 mg/kg/day total daily dose over the first week.

Effect of comorbid symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder on responses to atomoxetine in children with ADHD: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trial data.

RATIONALE: Up to 60% of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) suffer from comorbid affective or behavioral impairments, the most common condition being oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), which occurs in 40-60% of children with ADHD. OBJECTIVES: This post hoc meta-analysis was performed to determine the effect of the presence of comorbid ODD symptoms on clinical outcomes among pediatric and adolescent subjects being treated for ADHD. METHODS: Acute-phase data were analyzed from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in outpatients aged 6-16 and meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, criteria for ADHD. Subjects received placebo or atomoxetine (max 1.8 mg/kg/day, daily) for 6-8 weeks. Patients were diagnosed with comorbid ODD on structured diagnostic interview (Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-aged Children-Present and Lifetime Versions). RESULTS: Of the 512 subjects studied, 158 were diagnosed with comorbid ODD. Relative to placebo, atomoxetine treatment significantly reduced ADHD symptoms in both ODD-comorbid and noncomorbid subjects irrespective of the comorbidity with ODD. ADHD subjects also showed significant improvements from baseline on most of the psychosocial measures of the child health questionnaire irrespective of the comorbidity with ODD. Reduction in ODD symptoms was highly related to the magnitude of ADHD response. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine treatment significantly reduced ADHD symptoms in both ODD-comorbid and noncomorbid subjects to similar extents, indicating that the presence of comorbid symptoms of oppositionality does not affect clinical outcomes of treatment of ADHD with atomoxetine.

Long-term atomoxetine treatment in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine in adolescent subjects treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for up to 2 years. STUDY DESIGN: Data from 13 atomoxetine studies (6 double-blind, 7 open-label) were pooled for subjects age 12 to 18 with ADHD as defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. RESULTS: Of the 601 atomoxetine-treated subjects in this meta-analysis, 537 (89.4%) completed 3 months of acute treatment. A total of 259 subjects (48.4%) are continuing atomoxetine treatment; 219 of these subjects have completed at least 2 years of treatment. The mean dose of atomoxetine at endpoint was 1.41 mg/kg/day. Mean ADHD Rating Scale IV, parent version, investigator-administered and -scored total scores showed significant improvement (P < .001) over the first 3 months. Symptoms remained improved up to 24 months without dosage escalation. During the 2-year treatment period, 99 (16.5%) subjects discontinued treatment due to lack of effectiveness, and 31 (5.2%) subjects discontinued treatment due to adverse events. No clinically significant abnormalities in height, weight, blood pressure, pulse, mean laboratory values, or electrocardiography parameters were found. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year data from this ongoing study indicate that atomoxetine maintains efficacy among adolescents with ADHD, with no evidence of drug tolerance and no new or unexpected safety concerns.

Effects of long-term atomoxetine treatment for young children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this 13-study (seven double-blind/placebo-controlled, six open-label) meta-analysis is to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of long-term atomoxetine treatment among young children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Data were pooled from 6- and 7-year-olds (N = 272) who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, received atomoxetine treatment, and were enrolled in clinical trials of > or =2 years. Of these, 97 subjects reached the 24-month time point, providing data for long-term trend analysis of safety and effectiveness. RESULTS: Effectiveness for most subjects was maintained over long-term treatment, as demonstrated by total scores and total T scores on the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version, investigator administered and scored. During the 2-year period, 25.7% discontinued because of lack of effectiveness, but adverse events were clinically minor and transient, and only 4.0% of children discontinued because of an adverse event. Notable effects on growth were seen during early phases of the study, with attenuation occurring by the 2-year time point. Statistically significant increases in pulse and blood pressure and decreases in cardiac PR interval were seen, but no changes were deemed both statistically significant and clinically meaningful among any vital signs, electrocardiographic measures, or laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: Long-term atomoxetine treatment appears generally well tolerated and effective in the treatment of young children with ADHD.

Drug-induced psychosis in Parkinson disease: phenomenology and correlations among psychosis rating instruments.

OBJECTIVES: To describe further the phenomenology of drug-induced psychosis (DIP) in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and assess which items on two common psychosis rating instruments-the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)-are the best measure of DIP by comparing them with the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGIS). METHODS: Baseline data from two placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of olanzapine in PD patients with DIP were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 157 of 160 patients had hallucinations, with visual hallucinations being the most common (97% of subjects), followed by auditory (48%), tactile (23%), and olfactory (16%). Seventy-six percent of subjects experienced delusions, and all types of delusions occurred with relatively equal frequency. The CGIS correlated with suspiciousness, hallucinatory behavior, unusual thought content, and hostility on the BPRS; and delusions, hallucinations, agitation, aberrant motor behavior, and sleep on the NPI. CONCLUSION: Nonvisual hallucinations and delusions may occur more frequently in DIP than previously thought. These symptoms, plus agitation and hostility, may ultimately be the best measure of DIP in patients with PD.

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

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