Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Active-comparator trials are important to inform patient and physician choice. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with either ustekinumab or adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220-450, who had not responded to or were intolerant to conventional therapy (or were corticosteroid dependent) and had at least one ulcer of any size at baseline endoscopic evaluation. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications. Patients, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were in clinical remission (CDAI score <150) at week 52 in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment group). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03464136, and EudraCT, 2017-004209-41. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2018, and Dec 12, 2019, 633 patients were assessed for eligibility and 386 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ustekinumab (n=191) or adalimumab (n=195). 29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52. There was no significant difference between the ustekinumab and adalimumab groups in the occurrence of the primary endpoint; at week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (between-group difference 4%, 95% CI -6 to 14; p=0·42). Safety for both groups was consistent with previous reports. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group. No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study. INTERPRETATION: Both ustekinumab and adalimumab monotherapies were highly effective in this population of biologic-naive patients, with no difference in the primary outcome between the drugs. FUNDING: Janssen Scientific Affairs.

Incidence of Infusion Reactions and Clinical Effectiveness of Intravenous Golimumab Versus Infliximab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Real-World AWARE Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate tolerability and effectiveness of golimumab-IV versus infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a real-world setting. METHODS: AWARE, a prospective, real-world, pragmatic, observational, multicenter, phase 4 study, enrolled RA patients when initiating golimumab-IV or infliximab. Treatment decisions were made by the treating rheumatologist. The approved doses for RA are 2 mg/kg at weeks 0, 4, then Q8W for golimumab-IV and 3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, then Q8W (dose escalation permitted) for infliximab. A prespecified formal interim analysis was conducted. The primary endpoint was the incidence of infusion reactions (any adverse event that occurred during or within 1 h of infusion) through week 52. Major secondary endpoints were mean change from baseline in CDAI at months 6 and 12 in biologic-naïve patients (non-inferiority margin in the CDAI = 6). Baseline characteristics were adjusted using propensity scores with inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW). RESULTS: In the formal interim analysis (golimumab-IV, n = 479; infliximab, n = 354), the incidence of infusion reactions was significantly lower with golimumab-IV vs. infliximab (3.6 vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001, IPTW-adjusted). Among biologic-naïve patients, mean changes from baseline in CDAI at month 6 (- 9.5 golimumab-IV vs. - 10.1 infliximab) and at month 12 (- 9.4 golimumab-IV vs. - 10.1 infliximab) demonstrated non-inferiority. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients with an infusion reaction was significantly lower with golimumab-IV vs. infliximab. Among biologic-naïve patients, mean change from baseline in CDAI at months 6 and 12 was non-inferior for golimumab-IV vs. infliximab. Compared with fixed-dose golimumab-IV, infliximab dose escalation did not provide any greater improvements in CDAI for patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02728934.

Signal Detection and Methodological Limitations in a Real-World Registry: Learnings from the Evaluation of Long-Term Safety Analyses in PSOLAR.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR) was designed in 2007 as the first disease-based registry for patients with psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to discuss methodological limitations and post hoc analyses in long-term safety registries using learnings from analyses of a potential safety risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in PSOLAR. METHODS: PSOLAR is an international observational study of over 12,000 psoriasis patients that was conducted to meet postmarketing safety commitments for infliximab and ustekinumab. A recent annual review of registry data indicated a potential MACE risk for ustekinumab vs. non-biologics based on prespecified COX model regression analyses, which yielded an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.533 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.103-2.131). Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of key statistical methodology and implemented post hoc analytical methods to address specific limitations. RESULTS: The following limiting factors were identified: (1) inclusion of both prevalent and incident (new) users of biologics; (2) unanticipated imbalances in patient characteristics between treatment cohorts at baseline; (3) limited availability of relevant clinical data after enrollment; and (4) divergence of characteristics associated with outcomes among comparator groups over time. The analysis was modified to include only incident users, propensity scores were used to weight HRs, and adalimumab was deemed a more clinically appropriate comparator. The revised HR was 0.820 (95% CI 0.532-1.265), indicating no meaningful increase in MACE risk for ustekinumab. CONCLUSION: Our results, which do not support a causal association between ustekinumab exposure and MACE risk, underscore the need for ongoing assessment of analytical methods in long-term observational studies.

A randomised phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of subcutaneously administered ustekinumab and guselkumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: Interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The safety and efficacy of ustekinumab, a human monoclonal anti-IL-12/23 p40 antibody, and guselkumab, a human monoclonal anti-IL-23 antibody, were evaluated in adults with active RA despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive placebo at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks (n=55), ustekinumab 90 mg at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks (n=55), ustekinumab 90 mg at weeks 0, 4 and every 12 weeks (n=55), guselkumab 50 mg at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks (n=55), or guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks (n=54) through week 28; all patients continued a stable dose of MTX (10-25 mg/week). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR 20) at week 28. Safety was monitored through week 48. RESULTS: At week 28, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients achieving an ACR 20 response between the combined ustekinumab group (53.6%) or the combined guselkumab group (41.3%) compared with placebo (40.0%) (p=0.101 and p=0.877, respectively). Through week 48, the proportions of patients with at least one adverse event (AE) were comparable among the treatment groups. Infections were the most common type of AE. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ustekinumab or guselkumab did not significantly reduce the signs and symptoms of RA. No new safety findings were observed with either treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01645280.

Toreforant, A Histamine H4 Receptor Antagonist, in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Therapy: Results of 2 Phase II Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess toreforant (selective histamine H4 receptor antagonist) in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In a phase IIa, double-blind, placebo-controlled test, 86 patients were randomized (2:1) to once-daily toreforant 100 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. In phase IIb, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-range-finding evaluations, 272 patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to once-daily placebo or toreforant 3/10/30 mg. Primary efficacy endpoints for both studies were Week 12 changes in 28-joint Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). RESULTS: Phase IIa testing was terminated prematurely (patient fatality; secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis). Posthoc analyses indicated toreforant 100 mg/day reduced RA signs/symptoms through Week 12. Phase IIb testing, however, showed no significant Week 12 improvement in DAS28-CRP with toreforant. CONCLUSION: Toreforant was not effective in phase IIb testing.

Results from a Phase IIA Parallel Group Study of JNJ-40346527, an Oral CSF-1R Inhibitor, in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis despite Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of JNJ-40346527, a selective inhibitor of colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1) receptor kinase that acts to inhibit macrophage survival, proliferation, and differentiation in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study, adults were randomized (2:1) to receive oral JNJ-40346527 100 mg or placebo twice daily through Week 12. Patients with RA had disease activity [≥ 6 swollen/≥ 6 tender joints, C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 0.8 mg/dl] despite DMARD therapy for ≥ 6 months. The primary endpoint was change from baseline at Week 12 in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with CRP (DAS28-CRP). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses were also performed, and safety was assessed through Week 16. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were treated (63 JNJ-40346527, 32 placebo); 8 patients discontinued treatment (6 JNJ-40346527, 2 placebo) through Week 12. Mean improvements in DAS28-CRP from baseline to Week 12 were 1.15 for the JNJ-40346527 group and 1.42 for the placebo group (p = 0.30); thus, a statistically significant difference was not observed for the primary endpoint. Pharmacokinetic exposure to JNJ-40346527 and its active metabolites was above the projected concentration needed for pharmacologic activity, and effective target engagement and proof of activity were demonstrated by increased levels of CSF-1 and decreased CD16+ monocytes in JNJ-40346527-treated, but not placebo-treated, patients. Thirty-seven (58.7%) JNJ-40346527-treated and 16 (50.0%) placebo-treated patients reported ≥ 1 adverse event (AE); 1 (1.6%) JNJ-40346527-treated and 3 (9.4%) placebo-treated patients reported ≥ 1 serious AE. CONCLUSION: Although adequate exposure and effective peripheral target engagement were evident, JNJ-40346527 efficacy was not observed in patients with DMARD-refractory active RA. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01597739. EudraCT Number: 2011-004529-28.

Antihistamines and itch.

Histamine is one of the best-characterized pruritogens in humans. It is known to play a role in pruritus associated with urticaria as well as ocular and nasal allergic reactions. Histamine mediates its effect via four receptors. Antihistamines that block the activation of the histamine H1receptor, H1R, have been shown to be effective therapeutics for the treatment of pruritus associated with urticaria, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis. However, their efficacy in other pruritic diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis is limited. The other histamine receptors may also play a role in pruritus, with the exception of the histamine H2receptor, H2R. Preclinical evidence indicates that local antagonism of the histamine H3receptor, H3R, can induce scratching perhaps via blocking inhibitory neuronal signals. The histamine H4receptor, H4R, has received a significant amount of attention as to its role in mediating pruritic signals. Indeed, it has now been shown that a selective H4R antagonist can inhibit histamine-induced itch in humans. This clinical result, in conjunction with efficacy in various preclinical pruritus models, points to the therapeutic potential of H4R antagonists for the treatment of pruritus not controlled by antihistamines that target the H1R.

Phase 2a, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group study of a H4 R-antagonist (JNJ-39758979) in Japanese adults with moderate atopic dermatitis.

This trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the H4 R-antagonist JNJ-39758979 in adult Japanese patients with moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). Eligible patients were randomly assigned to JNJ-39758979 300 mg, 100 mg or placebo once daily for 6 weeks in this phase 2a, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. Primary efficacy was assessed via week-6 Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores. Secondary efficacy assessments included Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) pruritus assessments (Pruritus Categorical Response Scale [PCRS], Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales [PNRS], Pruritus Interference Numeric Rating Scale [PINRS] and Subject's Global Impressions of Change in Pruritus [SGICP]). Eighty-eight of 105 planned patients were randomized before the study was stopped and unblinded for safety reasons. The study did not meet the primary end-point. However, numerical improvements (i.e. decreases) in median EASI were observed with JNJ-39758979 100 mg (-3.7) and 300 mg (-3.0) versus placebo (-1.3) at week 6. Nominally significant improvements across PRO PCRS, PNRS and SGICP assessments were consistently observed, particularly with JNJ-39758979 300 mg. Safety, including adverse events (AE), was comparable between JNJ-39758979 and placebo with the exception of two patients (both receiving JNJ-39758979 300 mg) with serious AE of neutropenia, leading to premature study discontinuation. No deaths were reported. Except for neutropenia, no clinically relevant changes in laboratory values were observed. Although not conclusive, findings suggest H4 R-antagonism may be beneficial for AD, particularly in controlling pruritus. JNJ-39758979 appears to be associated with drug-induced agranulocytosis, likely an off-target effect.

The histamine H4 receptor antagonist, JNJ 39758979, is effective in reducing histamine-induced pruritus in a randomized clinical study in healthy subjects.

The histamine H4 receptor (H4R) is a promising target for the treatment of pruritus. A clinical study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the H4R antagonist, JNJ 39758979 [(R)-4-(3-amino-pyrrolidin-1-yl)-6-isopropyl-pyrimidin-2-ylamine], on histamine-induced pruritus in healthy subjects. A single oral dose of 600 mg JNJ 39758979, 10 mg cetirizine, or placebo was administered in a randomized, three-period, double-blind, crossover study. Treatment periods were separated by 22-day washout periods. A histamine challenge was administered on day -1 and at 2 and 6 hours postdose on day 1 of each treatment period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the area under the curve (AUC) of pruritus score 0-10 minutes after the histamine challenge. Secondary efficacy endpoints included wheal and flare areas assessed 10 minutes after the histamine challenge. Safety was assessed for all subjects. Of the 24 enrolled subjects, 23 individuals completed the study. One subject withdrew after completing two treatment periods. Due to a carryover effect of JNJ 39758979, only treatment period 1 was used for pruritus-related evaluations. Compared with placebo, the reduction of the AUC of pruritus score was significant for JNJ 39758979 at 2 hours (P = 0.0248) and 6 hours (P = 0.0060), and for cetirizine at 6 hours (P = 0.0417). In all treatment periods, JNJ 39758979 did not demonstrate a significant decrease in wheal or flare at either time point, although a significant reduction was achieved with cetirizine at 2 and 6 hours (P < 0.0001). Adverse eventss reported in >1 patient with JNJ 39758979 were headache (9%) and nausea (13%). In conclusion, JNJ 39758979 was effective in inhibiting histamine-induced pruritus in healthy subjects.

Clinical and preclinical characterization of the histamine H(4) receptor antagonist JNJ-39758979.

The histamine H4 receptor (H(4)R) has been shown to have preclinical involvement in both inflammatory and pruritic responses. JNJ-39758979 [(R)-4-(3-amino-pyrrolidin-1-yl)-6-isopropyl-pyrimidin-2-ylamine] is a potent and selective H(4)R antagonist with a Ki at the human receptor of 12.5 ± 2.6 nM and greater than 80-fold selectivity over other histamine receptors. The compound also exhibited excellent selectivity versus other targets. JNJ-39758979 showed dose-dependent activity in models of asthma and dermatitis consistent with other H(4)R antagonists. Preclinical toxicity studies of up to 6 months in rats and 9 months in monkeys indicated an excellent safety profile, supporting the clinical testing of the compound. An oral formulation of JNJ-39758979 was studied in a phase 1 human volunteer study to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. The compound was well tolerated, with the exception of dose-dependent nausea, and no safety issues were noted in the phase 1 study. JNJ-39758979 exhibited good pharmacokinetics upon oral dosing with a plasma half-life of 124-157 hours after a single oral dose. In addition, dose-dependent inhibition of histamine-induced eosinophil shape change was detected, suggesting that the H4R was inhibited in vivo. In conclusion, JNJ-39758979 is a potent and selective H(4)R antagonist that exhibited good preclinical and phase 1 safety in healthy volunteers with evidence of a pharmacodynamics effect in humans.

Effect of mild and moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics and safety of carisbamate.

This open-label, parallel-group study was designed to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of carisbamate in participants with mild or moderate hepatic impairment versus those with normal hepatic function. Healthy (n = 10) and hepatic-impaired (n = 20) participants received a single 200-mg oral dose of carisbamate. Serial PK blood samples were collected up to 120 hours postdose. A modest increase in mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC(∞)) was observed for the mild impairment group compared with the normal group (ratio of geometric means ~116%), while mean maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) values were similar (ratio of geometric means ~94%). The AUC(∞) value for the moderate hepatic-impaired group was approximately 207% that of the normal group, while there was a smaller increase in C(max) (~118%) compared with the normal group. Mean half-life (t(1/2)) values were prolonged in the moderate impairment group (21 hours) relative to the normal group (11 hours). There was a decrease in apparent clearance (CL/F) and an increase in AUC(∞u) (AUC(∞) × % drug unbound). The percentage of carisbamate unbound to proteins did not change across the groups, suggesting the increases in AUC(∞) were due to decreased intrinsic hepatic clearance. Carisbamate 200 mg was well tolerated.

A phase II open-label trial of bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone an autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant and failed to achieve a complete response.

BACKGROUND: A majority of multiple myeloma (MM) patients fail to achieve complete response (CR) to peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT); effective options following autologous transplantation are needed. Bortezomib (B) is active against MM. This study was conducted to determine the feasibility, safety, tolerability, and efficacy of B following high-dose melphalan therapy and PBSCT. Methods Fifty patients enrolled (48 evaluable) and 49 were treated (safety population). TREATMENT: 4 cycles B 1.3 mg/m(2) Days 1, 4, 8, and 11/21-days; 4 additional cycles were permitted for stable or responding patients. Results Median age was 55 years (range, 38-73), 68% male, 64% ECOG PS = 0, 44% Durie-Salmon Stage IIIA prior to induction, 42% had symptomatic IgG MM; 74% had prior single transplant (26% tandem). Responses post-transplant: 70% PRs, 18% MRs. A median of 4 cycles (range, 2-8) of B were administered. Responses: CR 8%, uCR 2%, PR 23%, uPR 19%, MR 10%, and no change 35%; median time-to-treatment failure (TTF) was 6.2 months (range, 1.0-19.4). Three deaths occurred (n = 1 sepsis, n = 2 disease progression). Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicities included: thrombocytopenia, neuropathy (14%, each); asthenia, neutropenia (10%, each); and nausea (4%). Twelve patients (24%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity and 30 patients (60%) completed the study; 20 patients started new treatment (median 5.8 months [range, 1.5-20.3]). CONCLUSIONS: The study closed early due to widespread availability of B, and the lack of B-naïve patients. Bortezomib monotherapy after melphalan and autologous PBSCT was feasible, safe and well-tolerated (toxicities were manageable), but failed to produce the hypothesized response rates.

Carisbamate as adjunctive treatment of partial onset seizures in adults in two randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the investigational drug carisbamate as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures (POS). METHODS: Two identical, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies were conducted in adults with POS uncontrolled for >or=1 year. Therapy-refractory epilepsy patients (>or=16 years) remained on stable doses of prescribed antiepileptic drugs (or=50% reduction in POS frequency) during the double-blind phase compared with the prospective baseline phase. RESULTS: Of the 565 patients randomized in study 1, 93% completed the study; of the 562 randomized in study 2, 94% completed the study. Patient characteristics were similar across both studies and treatment arms: mean age, 35 years (study 1, range 16-75 years) and 36 years (study 2, range 16-74 years); approximately 50% were men. Treatment with carisbamate 400 mg/day resulted in significant improvement (p < 0.01) in both efficacy measures compared with placebo in study 1 but not in study 2. Carisbamate 200 mg/day did not differ statistically from placebo in either study. Among the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (>or=5% in any group), those with an incidence exceeding placebo (>or=3%) were dizziness (400 mg/day group) and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Carisbamate 400 mg/day was effective in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures in one of these global studies. More than 200 mg/day of carisbamate is required for efficacy. Carisbamate was well-tolerated in both studies.

Anticholinergic activity of 107 medications commonly used by older adults.

The objective of this study was to measure the anticholinergic activity (AA) of medications commonly used by older adults. A radioreceptor assay was used to investigate the AA of 107 medications. Six clinically relevant concentrations were assessed for each medication. Rodent forebrain and striatum homogenate was used with tritiated quinuclidinyl benzilate. Drug-free serum was added to medication and atropine standard-curve samples. For medications that showed detectable AA, average steady-state peak plasma and serum concentrations (C(max)) in older adults were used to estimate relationships between in vitro dose and AA. All results are reported in pmol/mL of atropine equivalents. At typical doses administered to older adults, amitriptyline, atropine, clozapine, dicyclomine, doxepin, L-hyoscyamine, thioridazine, and tolterodine demonstrated AA exceeding 15 pmol/mL. Chlorpromazine, diphenhydramine, nortriptyline, olanzapine, oxybutynin, and paroxetine had AA values of 5 to 15 pmol/mL. Citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, lithium, mirtazapine, quetiapine, ranitidine, and temazepam had values less than 5 pmol/mL. Amoxicillin, celecoxib, cephalexin, diazepam, digoxin, diphenoxylate, donepezil, duloxetine, fentanyl, furosemide, hydrocodone, lansoprazole, levofloxacin, metformin, phenytoin, propoxyphene, and topiramate demonstrated AA only at the highest concentrations tested (patients with above-average C(max) values, who receive higher doses, or are frail may show AA). The remainder of the medications investigated did not demonstrate any AA at the concentrations examined. Psychotropic medications were particularly likely to demonstrate AA. Each of the drug classifications investigated (e.g., antipsychotic, cardiovascular) had at least one medication that demonstrated AA at therapeutic doses. Clinicians can use this information when choosing between equally efficacious medications, as well as in assessing overall anticholinergic burden.

Ethnic heterogeneity in glucoregulatory function during treatment with atypical antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Atypical antipsychotics induce weight gain and are linked to increased diabetes risk, but their relative impact on factors that elevate disease risk are unknown. METHODS: We performed a 6-month, randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the effects of risperidone and olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia. At baseline and weeks 6 and 24, we quantified: (1) total adiposity by DEXA, (2) visceral adiposity by abdominal CT, and (3) insulin sensitivity (SI) and (4) pancreatic function ("disposition index", DI) by intravenous glucose tolerance test. RESULTS: At baseline, groups (risperidone: n=28; olanzapine: n=31) were overweight or obese by body mass index (risperidone: 28.4+/-5.4, olanzapine: 30.6+/-7.0kg/m2). Both drugs induced weight gain (p<0.004). Total adiposity was increased by olanzapine at 6 weeks (p=0.0006) and by both treatments at 24 weeks (p<0.003). Visceral adiposity was increased by olanzapine and risperidone by 24 weeks (p<0.003). S(I) did not deteriorate appreciably, although a downward trend was observed with risperidone. Given known ethnic differences in adiposity and S(I), we performed secondary analysis in African American and Hispanic subjects. In this subset, olanzapine expanded both total and visceral adiposity (p<0.02); no increase was observed with risperidone. There were modest downward trends for SI with both treatments. By week 24, olanzapine-treated subjects exhibited diminished DI (p=0.033), indicating inadequate pancreatic compensation for insulin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective study in psychiatric patients that quantified antipsychotic effects on the multiple metabolic processes that increase diabetes risk. Results indicate that ethnic minorities may have greater susceptibility to antipsychotic-induced glucoregulatory complications.

Placebo-controlled study of relapse prevention with risperidone augmentation in older patients with resistant depression.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of risperidone augmentation of citalopram for relapse prevention in older patients with antidepressant-resistant depression was evaluated. METHODS: Patients with major depression aged > or =55 years who had failed at least one adequate trial of an antidepressant received citalopram monotherapy (20-40 mg) for 4 to 6 weeks to confirm nonresponse (<50% reduction in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] scores). Those who achieved remission (HAM-D score < or =7 or Clinical Global Impressions severity score 1 or 2) after 4 to 6 weeks of open-label risperidone augmentation (0.25-1 mg) then entered a 24-week double-blind maintenance phase during which they received citalopram augmented with risperidone or placebo. RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 63.4 +/- 7.9 years; 58% were women; 61% had received two or more antidepressants during the current episode; 93 met the criterion for citalopram nonresponse and entered open-label risperidone augmentation. Of the 89 patients who completed risperidone augmentation, 63 achieved symptom resolution and entered the 6-month double-blind maintenance phase: 32 received risperidone augmentation and 31 received placebo augmentation. The median time to relapse (Kaplan-Meier estimates) was 105 days in the risperidone group and 57 days in the placebo group (Wilcoxon chi(2): 3.2, df = 1, p = 0.069). Overall, 18 of 32 (56%) from the risperidone group and 20 of 31 (65%) from the placebo group relapsed. Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In older patients with resistant depression and poor response to standard treatments, risperidone augmentation resulted in symptom resolution in a substantial number of patients and a nonsignificant delay in time to relapse.

Incidence and costs of polypharmacy: data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of risperidone and quetiapine in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The use of adjunctive psychotropics and the costs of polypharmacy in patients randomized to receive risperidone or quetiapine were compared in a placebo-controlled double-blind study conducted in India, Romania, and the United States. METHODS: The efficacy and safety of risperidone, quetiapine, and placebo were compared in a 14-day monotherapy phase in patients experiencing an acute exacerbation of symptoms of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. This was followed by a 28-day, additive-therapy phase during which addition of antipsychotics or other psychotropic medications was permitted. Risperidone was received by 153 patients in the monotherapy phase and 133 in the additive therapy phase, quetiapine by 156 and 122, respectively, and placebo by 73 and 53. Rates of polypharmacy were examined using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression methods. Costs of polypharmacy were analyzed by non-parametric Wilcoxon 2-sample tests. RESULTS: Primary study results have been reported elsewhere (Potkin et al., Schizophr Res 2006;85:254-65). Mean (+/-SD) doses at the additive-therapy baseline were 4.7 +/- 0.9 mg/day of risperidone and 579.0 +/- 128.9 mg/day of quetiapine. Additional psychotropics were received by 36% of the risperidone group, 58% of the quetiapine group (p < 0.01), and by 58% of the placebo group. Antipsychotics accounted for > 95% of the added psychotropics, the most common being olanzapine and haloperidol. The relative risk (quetiapine vs. risperidone) for antipsychotic polypharmacy was 1.90 (p = 0.001; 95% CI 1.29, 2.80). The mean projected cost of additional antipsychotics per randomized patient during the additive-therapy phase was $57.03 in the risperidone group and $101.64 in the quetiapine group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm earlier reports of higher rates of polypharmacy with quetiapine than with risperidone. The findings also reveal substantial between-treatment differences in costs associated with polypharmacy. Limitations of the study include that the study was of short duration and that a high proportion of patients were recruited from countries other than the United States.