Cariprazine for the Adjunctive Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder in Patients With Inadequate Response to Antidepressant Therapy: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of cariprazine, a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 and serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, as adjunctive treatment for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and inadequate response to ongoing antidepressant therapy (ADT).Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted from November 2018 to September 2021. Adults with MDD per DSM-5 criteria were randomized (1:1:1) to cariprazine 1.5 mg/d or 3 mg/d plus ADT, or placebo plus ADT. The primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score, respectively.Results: A total of 249 placebo-, 250 cariprazine 1.5 mg/d-, and 251 cariprazine 3 mg/d-treated patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. At week 6, the least squares mean change in MADRS total score was -13.8 for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d, -14.8 for cariprazine 3 mg/d, and -13.4 for placebo; differences versus placebo were not statistically significant. Mean change from baseline in CGI-S scores at week 6 was not significant for cariprazine versus placebo, although a trend toward significance was observed for 3 mg/d (P = .0573 [not adjusted for multiplicity]). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 5% either cariprazine group and twice placebo) were akathisia and insomnia.Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences for cariprazine 1.5 or 3 mg/d versus placebo on the primary or secondary outcomes. Cariprazine was generally well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were detected.Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03739203.

Burden, Prevalence, and Treatment of Uterine Fibroids: A Survey of U.S. Women.

BACKGROUND: Most women will experience uterine fibroids by the age of 50, yet few data exist describing the overall patient experience with fibroids. The objective of this population-based survey was to characterize symptom burden, patient awareness, and treatment decision-making for fibroids, including a comparison among women of varying backgrounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women (≥18 years) were recruited via email from GfK KnowledgePanel®, a representative panel of US households, or identified with opt-in consumer panels. The Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Health-Related Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) questionnaire and Aberdeen Menorrhagia Severity Scale (AMSS) were included. RESULTS: Eligible women were grouped into three cohorts: "at-risk" (symptoms suggestive of fibroids without clinical diagnosis, n = 300), "diagnosed" (n = 871), and fibroid-related "hysterectomy" (n = 272). Cohort and intracohort race/ethnicity and income analyses revealed differences in symptom burden, awareness/perception, and treatment history. Based on UFS-QOL scores, at-risk women reported significantly greater symptom severity and decreased health-related QOL versus diagnosed women; Hispanic women reported greater symptom severity versus white and black women. At-risk women also reported heavy menstrual bleeding and significant impact on work productivity. Among diagnosed women, 71% used pharmacologic therapy for symptom relief, and 30% underwent surgical or procedural treatment. Initial discussions with healthcare providers significantly impacted treatment outcomes; the hysterectomy cohort was most likely to first discuss hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Women with fibroids or symptoms suggestive of fibroids experience significant distress that reduces QOL, particularly racial minorities and women in lower income brackets. Survey results suggest that many women are likely undiagnosed, underscoring the need for improved awareness and education.

Women's perceptions and treatment patterns related to contraception: results of a survey of US women.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this survey was to understand US women's contraception journey from her first prescribed method to her current one including reasons for choosing and stopping/switching methods, healthcare provider relationships, and bleeding preferences. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a nationally-representative, web-based survey of US women aged 16 to 50 years currently using (N=1656) or had previously used (N=1448) prescription contraception, or who had never used it but would consider using it in the future (N=103). Statistical analyses were based on overlap formulae with sample weights adjusted to 2010 US census demographic benchmarks. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 11,906 women, and 5957 responded (50% response rate). Among qualified respondents, 3104 had experience with prescription contraception. Oral contraceptives (OC) remain the most frequently prescribed method as first or subsequent contraception. However, as women switch to their current prescription method, more chose IUD contraception. As reported by respondents, only 48% of current users received counseling on how to use specific methods, and 58% were counseled on bleeding patterns to expect, while 67% were offered counseling on potential side effects. Many of the side effects reported in this study for first and current prescription contraception were nonspecific and may be related to a nocebo effect, lack of understanding about normal bodily fluctuations, or poor compliance. Many women (34%) reported 'making their periods lighter' as a reason for using their current prescription method, and 53% would prefer to skip their monthly period altogether. CONCLUSIONS: Misperceptions about contraception are common, and prescription contraception choice can be quite complex. Clinicians can enhance patient satisfaction by providing adequate information and matching methods to women's lifestyles, reproductive choices, and pregnancy risk. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides insight into modern women's attitudes and views toward prescription contraception that may be important to clinicians and women themselves.

A Single-Center, Open-Label, 3-Way Crossover Trial to Determine the Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Interaction Between Nebivolol and Valsartan in Healthy Volunteers at Steady State.

Combining different classes of antihypertensives is more effective for reducing blood pressure (BP) than increasing the dose of monotherapies. The aims of this phase I study were to investigate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between nebivolol, a vasodilatory ß1-selective blocker, and valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, and to assess safety and tolerability of the combination. This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, 3-way crossover trial in 30 healthy adults aged 18-45 years. Participants were randomized into 1 of 6 treatment sequences (1:1:1:1:1:1) consisting of three 7-day treatment periods followed by a 7-day washout. Once-daily oral treatments comprised nebivolol (20 mg), valsartan (320 mg), and nebivolol-valsartan combination (20/320 mg). Outcomes included AUC0-τ,ss, Cmax,ss, Tmax,ss, changes in BP, pulse rate, plasma angiotensin II, plasma renin activity, 24-hour urinary aldosterone, and adverse events. Steady-state pharmacokinetic interactions were observed but deemed not clinically significant. Systolic and diastolic BP reduction was significantly greater with nebivolol-valsartan combination than with either monotherapy. The mean pulse rate associated with nebivolol and nebivolol-valsartan treatments was consistently lower than that associated with valsartan monotherapy. A sharp increase in mean day 7 plasma renin activity and plasma angiotensin II that occurred in valsartan-treated participants was significantly attenuated with concomitant nebivolol administration. Mean 24-hour urine aldosterone at day 7 was substantially decreased after combined treatment, as compared with either monotherapy. All treatments were safe and well tolerated. In conclusion, nebivolol and valsartan coadministration led to greater reductions in BP compared with either monotherapy; nebivolol and valsartan lower BP through complementary mechanisms.