Adjunctive Cariprazine for the Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of cariprazine, a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 and serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, as adjunctive therapy for patients with major depressive disorder and nonresponse to at least one antidepressant monotherapy. METHODS: In this double-blind placebo-controlled study, adults with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressants alone were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to placebo, cariprazine at 1.5 mg/day, or cariprazine at 3.0 mg/day. The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 6 in total score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Least-squares mean differences were estimated in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures with adjustment for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The mITT population comprised 751 patients (placebo: N=249; cariprazine 1.5 mg/day: N=250; cariprazine 3.0 mg/day: N=252). At week 6, the mean reduction from baseline in MADRS total score was significantly greater with cariprazine 1.5 mg/day than with placebo (-14.1 vs. -11.5) but not with cariprazine 3.0 mg/day (-13.1). Significant differences between the cariprazine 1.5 mg/day and placebo groups were also observed at weeks 2 and 4. Meeting the MADRS response criteria was significantly more likely among patients receiving cariprazine 1.5 mg/day than placebo (44.0% vs. 34.9%); remission rates were not significantly different among groups. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥5% in either cariprazine group and twice the placebo rate) were akathisia and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive cariprazine at 1.5 mg/day demonstrated efficacy in reducing depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressants alone. Cariprazine was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile that was consistent with previous findings.

Onset and maintenance of efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: A 16-week dose-titration study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the onset and maintenance of efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab for pain relief and functional improvement in difficult-to-treat patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) in a 16-week dose-titration study (NCT02697773). METHODS: Patients were randomized to placebo (placebo group) or tanezumab 2.5 mg at baseline and week 8 (tanezumab 2.5 mg group), or tanezumab 2.5 mg at baseline and tanezumab 5 mg at week 8 (tanezumab 2.5/5 mg group). Analyses included change from baseline in average daily index joint pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function, and treatment responses (WOMAC Pain improvement criteria and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International [OMERACT-OARSI] criteria). RESULTS: The 696 patients received placebo (n = 232), tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 231), or tanezumab 2.5/5 mg (n = 233). Average daily index joint pain was statistically significantly improved within the first week (day 3-5) with tanezumab 2.5 mg compared with placebo. On first post-randomization WOMAC measurement (week 2), both tanezumab groups had statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function, and more tanezumab-treated patients achieved treatment response criteria (≥30%, ≥50%, or ≥70% reduction in WOMAC Pain or OMERACT-OARSI response). Efficacy was generally maintained throughout the 16-week treatment period. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous tanezumab provided statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in average daily index joint pain within the first week and WOMAC Pain and Physical Function (week 2) that were generally maintained throughout the 16-week treatment period. Tanezumab 5 mg provided only modest additional efficacy over tanezumab 2.5 mg.

Extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as adjunctive therapy in patients with generalized anxiety disorder and a history of inadequate treatment response: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), first-line treatment does not lead to remission. This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) in patients with GAD and an inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). METHODS: Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR or placebo adjunctive to SSRI/SNRIs in an 11-week study. The primary endpoint was change from randomization to week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score. Secondary variables were HAM-A psychic/somatic clusters, response, and remission, and Clinical Global Impression­Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients received quetiapine XR (n=209) or placebo (n=200). The week 8 mean change in HAM-A total score was not statistically significant for quetiapine XR (­10.74; P=.079) vs placebo (­9.61). Secondary variables were generally consistent with the primary analysis, except for a significant reduction in HAM-A total score (week 1) and significant improvements in HAM-A psychic cluster and CGI-S total scores (week 8). Adverse events included dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, headache, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GAD and an inadequate response to SSRI/SNRIs, adjunctive quetiapine XR did not show a statistically significant effect for the primary endpoint at week 8, although some secondary endpoints were statistically significant vs placebo. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated.

Extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as adjunctive therapy in patients with generalized anxiety disorder and a history of inadequate treatment response: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), first-line treatment does not lead to remission. This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) in patients with GAD and an inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). METHODS: Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR or placebo adjunctive to SSRI/SNRIs in an 11-week study. The primary endpoint was change from randomization to week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score. Secondary variables were HAM-A psychic/somatic clusters, response, and remission, and Clinical Global Impression­Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients received quetiapine XR (n = 209) or placebo (n = 200). The week 8 mean change in HAM-A total score was not statistically significant for quetiapine XR (­10.74; P = .079) vs placebo (­9.61). Secondary variables were generally consistent with the primary analysis, except for a significant reduction in HAM-A total score (week 1) and significant improvements in HAM-A psychic cluster and CGI-S total scores (week 8). Adverse events included dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, headache, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GAD and an inadequate response to SSRI/ SNRIs, adjunctive quetiapine XR did not show a statistically significant effect for the primary endpoint at week 8, although some secondary endpoints were statistically significant vs placebo. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated.

A randomized, double-blind study of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in patients with generalized anxiety disorder.

This study evaluated once-daily, extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This was a 10-week (8-week active treatment/2-week posttreatment drug-discontinuation/tapering phase), double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (D1448C00009). Primary end point was change from randomization at week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score. Overall, 951 patients with GAD were randomized (quetiapine XR: 50 mg/d, n = 234; 150 mg/d, n = 241; 300 mg/d, n = 241; placebo, n = 235). At week 8, HAM-A total scores significantly (P < 0.001) improved versus placebo (-11.10) with quetiapine XR 50 mg/d (-13.31) and 150 mg/d (-13.54), but not 300 mg/d (-11.87; P = 0.240). At week 1, HAM-A total scores significantly improved versus placebo (-5.94) with quetiapine XR 50 mg/d (-7.47; P < 0.01), 150 mg/d (-8.19; P < 0.001), and 300 mg/d (-7.23; P < 0.01). Versus placebo at week 8, quetiapine XR 50 and 150 mg/d significantly improved HAM-A psychic (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively) and somatic (P < 0.001; P < 0.01, respectively) cluster scores, HAM-A response (≥ 50% total score reduction; P < 0.05), and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement categorical changes (P < 0.05). For quetiapine XR 150 mg/d, significant (P < 0.05) improvements were seen for HAM-A remission (total score, ≤ 7) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scores. For quetiapine XR 300 mg/d, improvements in these secondary variables were not significantly different versus placebo. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index global scores improved with all 3 doses (quetiapine: XR 50 mg/d, -4.07 [P < 0.05]; 150 mg/d, -4.38 [P < 0.05]; 300 mg/d, -3.97 [P < 0.05], versus -3.31 with placebo). Adverse events (>10% with quetiapine XR) were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, dizziness, headache, and fatigue. Quetiapine XR (50/150 mg/d) monotherapy was effective at week 8 in patients with GAD; symptom improvement was seen at week 1 for all doses (50/150/300 mg/d). Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of quetiapine.

Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate (Quetiapine XR) as Adjunct Therapy in Patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and a History of Inadequate Treatment Response: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of adjunct extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/ serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRI/SNRIs). METHODS: 11-week (1-week single-blind placebo run-in; 8-week randomized treatment; 2-week post-treatment period), double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR or placebo adjunct to SSRI/SNRI. 50 mg initial dose; 150 mg/day, Day 3; 300 mg/day, Weeks × and 4 if indicated (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness [CGI-S] ≥ 4; 150 mg/day tolerated). Primary endpoint: change from randomization to Week 8 in HAM-A total score. Secondary variables: Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) psychic/somatic clusters, response and remission; and CGI-S. RESULTS: 409 patients were randomized to quetiapine XR (n = 209) or placebo (n = 200); 41% and 55% of patients, respectively, had dose increases (300 mg/day). Week 8 mean change in HAM-A total score was not statistically significant for quetiapine XR (-10.74; p = 0.079) versus placebo (-9.61). Secondary variables were generally consistent with the primary analysis, except a significant reduction in HAM-A total score at Week 1 (-6.45, quetiapine XR versus -4.47, placebo; p < 0.001); significant improvements in HAM-A psychic cluster (p < 0.05) and CGI-S total (p < 0.05) scores at Week 8. Adverse events (.10% either group) were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, headache, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GAD and inadequate response to SSRI/SNRI, adjunct quetiapine XR did not show a statistically significant effect for the primary endpoint at Week 8, although some secondary endpoints were statistically significant versus placebo. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated.

Tolerability and efficacy of armodafinil in naïve patients with excessive sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea, shift work disorder, or narcolepsy: a 12-month, open-label, flexible-dose study with an extension period.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: This 12-month, open-label, flexible-dose study with an extension period evaluated the tolerability and efficacy of armodafinil in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), shift work disorder (SWD), or narcolepsy. METHODS: Armodafinil-naïve, adult patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated OSA (n = 170), SWD (n = 108), or narcolepsy (n = 50) received armodafinil (100-250 mg) once daily (treated OSA or narcolepsy) or before night shifts (SWD). Patients with OSA were regular users of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. Efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). RESULTS: Across the diagnosis groups, the most commonly occurring adverse event was headache (14%-24%). Forty-three patients (13%) and 13 patients (4%) were withdrawn because of adverse events and insufficient efficacy, respectively. Armodafinil did not adversely affect CPAP therapy. At the final visit, 80% (95% CI: 74.1, 86.7) of patients with treated OSA and 84% (72.7, 94.8) of patients with narcolepsy were rated on the CGI-I as at least minimally improved with regard to overall clinical condition; 98% (95.2, 100.0) of patients with SWD were rated as improved with regard to sleepiness during night shifts, including the commute to and from work. Armodafinil improved ESS total scores in patients with treated OSA (mean [SD] [95% CI] change from baseline, -7.3 [5.6] [-8.39, -6.30]) and patients with narcolepsy (-4.7 [6.0] [-7.41, -1.93]). CONCLUSIONS: Armodafinil administered for 12 months or more was generally well tolerated and improved wakefulness in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated OSA, SWD, or narcolepsy. Armodafinil improved the overall clinical condition of patients with treated OSA or narcolepsy.

Levetiracetam in generalized social anxiety disorder: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-arm, parallel-group study was carried out to determine the effectiveness and safety of the novel anticonvulsant levetiracetam for the treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder (GSAD). METHOD: After a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 217 adult outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for social anxiety disorder, generalized type, were randomly assigned (1:1) to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with either levetiracetam (n = 111) or placebo (n = 106). Participants were required to have scores of >or= 60 on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) and a total score of or= 30% reduction in LSAS score) were similar with 41.3% (levetiracetam) and 46.6% (placebo). No significant between-group differences were found on secondary outcome measures, which included changes in Sheehan Disability Scale, Clinical Global Impression of Change, and HDRS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Although well-tolerated, levetiracetam failed to separate from placebo in this trial for the treatment of moderate to severe GSAD.

Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar I and II depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (the BOLDER II study).

This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I or II disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) who were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d; once daily, evening dosing) or placebo. Patients were assessed weekly using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). The primary end point was change in MADRS total score from baseline to Week 8 (analysis of covariance/last-observation-carried-forward analysis). Of 509 patients randomized, 59% completed the study. Improvements from baseline in mean MADRS total scores were significantly greater with quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/d than with placebo from first evaluation (Week 1) through Week 8 (both P

Treatment with venlafaxine extended release after SSRI nonresponse or intolerance: a randomized comparison of standard- and higher-dosing strategies.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate efficacy of standard and higher doses of venlafaxine extended release (ER) in depressed outpatients who had either not responded to or could not tolerate an adequate trial of therapy with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). METHODS: Outpatients (n = 232) with major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with either "standard" (n = 119; mean dose = 148 mg/d) or "higher" (n = 113; mean dose = 309 mg/d) dosage therapies. Between weeks 8 and 12, nonresponders in the standard dose group could receive higher dose therapy. RESULTS: Response rates in the higher dose group were significantly greater at week 8 on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (68% vs 52%; P < 0.001) and Patient Global Impressions scale (intent-to- treat; 68% vs 52%; P < 0.001). The dosing strategies did not, however, differ significantly in change in HAM-D21 total score or HAM-D21 response or remission rates. At week 12, there were no significant efficacy differences between the two groups in the intent-to-treat sample. Five side effects (constipation, sweating, hypertension, agitation, and urinary frequency) were more common in the high-dose group. CONCLUSIONS: Higher dose therapy with venlafaxine ER (ie, 300-375 mg/d) resulted in a more rapid response on some measures, but was not as well tolerated as therapy at standard doses. Although these data provide further evidence of a dose-response relationship for venlafaxine therapy results suggest that slower titration to higher doses of venlafaxine ER may improve tolerability without greatly diminishing the probability of success.

Effect of lamotrigine on cognitive complaints in patients with bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: This analysis describes the effects of bipolar I disorder on self-reported neurocognitive measures and remediation of these deficits with lamotrigine therapy. METHOD: Data were derived from 2 clinical trials designed to assess the efficacy of lamotrigine as maintenance therapy for recently manic (N = 349) or depressed (N = 966) patients (DSM-IV criteria). During the 8- to 16-week open stabilization phase, patients received lamotrigine as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy (target dose = 200 mg/day, minimum dose = 100 mg/day) while other psychotropic drugs were discontinued. The Medical Outcomes Study Cognitive Scale (MOS-Cog) and the AB-Neurological Assessment Scale (AB-NAS) were used to measure cognitive functioning at baseline and at the end of the open-label phase. To examine the relationship between depressive and manic symptomatology, initiation of lamotrigine, and cognitive functioning, correlational analyses and analyses of covariance were conducted. RESULTS: Bipolar patients in both trials had significant cognitive impairment; however, it was much greater in index episode depressed bipolar patients compared with index episode manic patients. In both studies, substitution of lamotrigine for other psychotropic medications significantly improved the mean scores from baseline to the end of the open-label phase on the MOS-Cog and the AB-NAS (p < .0001). Among patients who took lamotrigine as monotherapy, the mean MOS-Cog score also improved significantly versus baseline (+32.2, or 81%, for depressed patients, p < .0001; and +19.9, or 35%, for manic patients, p < .0001). Mean AB-NAS scores (-19.7, or -55%, for depressed patients, p < .0001; and -7.2, or -32%, for manic patients, p = .0062) showed similar improvement. Cognitive impairment was significantly correlated with depression symptom severity based on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores (p < .0001). After controlling for change in mood, age, gender, baseline score, duration of illness, and duration of use of other psychotropics, a significant improvement in cognition was observed during the open-label phase when lamotrigine was used as monotherapy/adjunctive therapy. CONCLUSION: Treatment with lamotrigine as monotherapy and as adjunctive therapy was associated with improved cognitive functioning and reduced neurocognitive side effects, regardless of index mood polarity.

Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of fluvoxamine in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacokinetics of fluvoxamine in children and adolescents and to compare pharmacokinetic data from adolescents to adults from a previous study. METHOD: Fluvoxamine was titrated to a target dose of 100 mg b.i.d. in children (6-11 years) and 150 mg b.i.d. in adolescents (12-17 years) with obsessive-compulsive disorder or other disorder requiring fluvoxamine treatment. Serum samples were collected over 12 hours after 12 or more consecutive doses of 25, 50, 100, and 150 mg. RESULTS: Sixteen children (seven females, nine males) and 18 adolescents (nine females, nine males) were included in the pharmacokinetic analyses. Children demonstrated higher mean peak plasma concentration, higher mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve, and lower apparent oral clearance compared with adolescents. Compared with male children, female children had higher mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve, higher mean peak plasma concentration, and more reports of adverse events. However, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve was not directly correlated with frequency or severity of adverse events. Pharmacokinetics were nonlinear over the dose range studied. No pharmacokinetic differences were apparent between adolescents and adults on 150 mg b.i.d. CONCLUSIONS: These pharmacokinetic results suggest that children (especially females) have a higher exposure to fluvoxamine than adolescents, whereas adolescents and adults appear to have similar exposure to fluvoxamine.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of a flexible dose of venlafaxine ER in adult outpatients with generalized social anxiety disorder.

Venlafaxine extended release (ER) is a dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor previously shown to be effective in the treatment of major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. This placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial examined the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine ER in outpatients with generalized social anxiety disorder. Two hundred seventy-two outpatients were randomly assigned to receive either a flexible dose of venlafaxine ER (75 to 225 mg/d) or placebo for 12 weeks. Venlafaxine ER was statistically significantly more effective than placebo as demonstrated by the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale total scores at weeks 4 to 12. Scores of both the Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scales showed that venlafaxine ER was significantly more effective than placebo at weeks 4 to 12. In addition, more venlafaxine ER-treated patients achieved CGI-Improvement scores of 1 or 2 than placebo-treated patients at weeks 4 to 12, demonstrating a greater percentage of responders to venlafaxine ER treatment. Assessment using the fear/anxiety and avoidance subscales of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Inventory Scale also showed venlafaxine ER to be more effective than placebo at weeks 4 to 12 and 6 to 12, respectively. The Sheehan Disability Inventory showed that patients in the venlafaxine ER-treated group had significantly better outcomes in social life at weeks 4 and 12, and in work at week 12. Adverse events were similar to those reported in studies of venlafaxine ER in depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Venlafaxine ER was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in the short-term treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder.

Treatment Options in Severe Psychotic Depression.

In our sample of 15 hospitalized patients with severe psychotic depression, six responded to therapy with tricyclic antidepressants combined with neuroleptics. Of the nine nonresponders, eight showed an excellent clinical response to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The clinical outcome after 6 months of treatment was similar in both groups. We recommend that protracted, complicated trials of pharmacotherapy be reevaluated in psychotic depression. A prospective comparative study of ECT and pharmacotherapy is needed to define the optimal treatment for psychotic depression.