Systematic drug repositioning through mining adverse event data in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Drug repositioning (i.e., drug repurposing) is the process of discovering new uses for marketed drugs. Historically, such discoveries were serendipitous. However, the rapid growth in electronic clinical data and text mining tools makes it feasible to systematically identify drugs with the potential to be repurposed. Described here is a novel method of drug repositioning by mining ClinicalTrials.gov. The text mining tools I2E (Linguamatics) and PolyAnalyst (Megaputer) were utilized. An I2E query extracts "Serious Adverse Events" (SAE) data from randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov. Through a statistical algorithm, a PolyAnalyst workflow ranks the drugs where the treatment arm has fewer predefined SAEs than the control arm, indicating that potentially the drug is reducing the level of SAE. Hypotheses could then be generated for the new use of these drugs based on the predefined SAE that is indicative of disease (for example, cancer).

A randomized, double-blind comparison of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, and fluoxetine in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Two parallel, 8-week double-blind studies compared olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, and fluoxetine in outpatients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHOD: Treatment-resistant depression was defined as a documented history of current-episode antidepressant failure plus a prospective failure on fluoxetine. Following an 8-week fluoxetine lead-in, 605 nonresponders with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, or fluoxetine. The primary outcome measure was baseline-to-endpoint mean change on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The study was conducted from April 2002 to May 2005. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, Study 1 revealed no statistically significant therapy differences in MADRS mean change (olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: -11.0, fluoxetine: -9.4, olanzapine: -10.5). In Study 2, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater MADRS improvement (-14.5) than fluoxetine (-8.6, p < .001) and olanzapine (-7.0, p < .001). Pooled study results revealed significant differences for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination (-12.7) versus fluoxetine (-9.0, p < .001) and olanzapine (-8.8, p < .001). Pooled remission rates were 27% for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, 17% for fluoxetine, and 15% for olanzapine. Adverse events were consistent with previous studies. Cholesterol mean change (mg/dL) was +15.1 for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, +0.8 for fluoxetine, and +2.7 for olanzapine. Mean weight change (kg) was +4.9 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +0.4 for fluoxetine, and +5.5 for olanzapine. Nonfasting glucose mean change (mg/dL) was +11.4 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +4.9 for fluoxetine, and +9.9 for olanzapine. CONCLUSION: Patients with TRD (defined as treatment failure on 2 antidepressants) taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than patients taking olanzapine or fluoxetine in 1 of 2 studies and in the pooled analysis. When considered within the context of all available evidence, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination is an efficacious therapy for patients with TRD. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00035321.

Estimating the response rate in the presence of measurement error.

In clinical research, it is often of interest to estimate the response rate (i.e. the proportion of subjects who achieve a clinically meaningful threshold) for a particular variable. The standard estimator of the response rate is generally biased in the presence of measurement error. The estimation accounting for the measurement error utilizing fully nonparametric (NP) methods is complicated and may not be efficient. Therefore, we propose a model-based approach assuming a parametric model for the true value and only the first few moments for the measurement error. The estimator for the true response rate and the variance for the estimator are derived. An innovative method using bootstrap simulation is proposed to check the model assumption. Simulations show that the proposed estimator outperforms a fully NP estimator if the model assumption for X holds. This method is applied to address a commonly occurring question in osteoporosis regarding response to treatment in terms of longitudinal changes in bone mineral density (BMD). Bootstrap simulations showed that the model utilized is appropriate. The proposed method can also be applied in other fields of clinical research.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in treatment-resistant depression.

Based on preliminary evidence of its usefulness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) was examined in comparison with olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in a TRD population. In this 12-week double-blind study, 483 subjects with unipolar, nonpsychotic TRD, with historic failure on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and prospective failure on open-label venlafaxine, were randomized to an OFC or to an olanzapine, fluoxetine, or venlafaxine monotherapy group. Venlafaxine was continued randomly in the double-blind acute phase to explore the benefits of continuation versus switching therapy. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total change score at end point was the primary outcome measure. The OFC group had significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms by week 1 of treatment (MADRS mean change =-7.2, baseline =29.6), in comparison to olanzapine (-4.8, P=.03), fluoxetine (-4.7, P=.03), or venlafaxine (-3.7, P=.002) groups and maintained its statistical separation from all three monotherapy groups through week 6. At end point, the OFC group was significantly different only from the olanzapine group (-14.1 vs. -7.7, P<.001). Analysis of a subgroup of subjects who had an SSRI failure in their current depressive episode (n=334) revealed statistical separation from both olanzapine and fluoxetine (but not venlafaxine) at end point: OFC (-14.6) versus olanzapine (-9.4, P<.001) versus fluoxetine (-10.7, P=.006) versus venlafaxine (-14.7, P=.98). The OFC had a safety profile comparable to its component monotherapies (i.e., olanzapine and fluoxetine), showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect, and was effective in this TRD sample. At the study end point, OFC, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, and low-dose OFC all appeared to be similarly effective.

Long-term neurocognitive effects of olanzapine or low-dose haloperidol in first-episode psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive deficits are severe in first-episode psychosis. METHODS: Patients (N = 263) with first-episode psychosis (schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorders) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with olanzapine (mean 11.30 mg/day) or haloperidol (mean 4.87 mg/day) for 104 weeks. A neurocognitive battery was administered at baseline (n = 246) and 12 (n = 167), 24 (n = 126), 52 (n = 89), and 104 (n = 46) weeks during treatment. Weighted principal component and unweighted composite scores were derived from individual tests. RESULTS: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement on both composite scores. On the basis of the weighted composite score, olanzapine had greater improvement than haloperidol only at 12 (p = .014) and 24 (p = .029) weeks. For the unweighted composite, olanzapine had significantly better improvement compared with haloperidol only at week 12 (p = .044). At week 12 only, olanzapine improved performance on the Digit Symbol and Continuous Performance Test significantly more than haloperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Both antipsychotic agents appeared to improve neurocognitive functioning among first-episode psychosis patients with schizophrenia. A significantly greater benefit in terms of neurocognitive improvement was found with olanzapine than with haloperidol at weeks 12 and 24.

Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for treatment-resistant depression: a controlled study of SSRI and nortriptyline resistance.

BACKGROUND: This 8-week, double-blind, multicenter study was undertaken to replicate, in a larger sample of patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD; DSM-IV criteria), the results of a pilot study of the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. METHOD: The study was begun in August 1999. The primary entry criterion was a history of failure to respond to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Patients (N = 500) who subsequently failed to respond to nortriptyline during an open-label lead-in phase were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: olanzapine (6-12 mg/day) plus fluoxetine (25-50 mg/day) combination, olanzapine (6-12 mg/day), fluoxetine (25-50 mg/day), or nortriptyline (25-175 mg/day). The primary outcome measure was baseline-to-endpoint mean change in score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). RESULTS: At the 8-week study endpoint, MADRS total scores decreased by a mean 8.7 points from baseline (28.5) with the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, 7.0 points from baseline (28.4) with olanzapine (p = .08), 8.5 points from baseline (28.4) with fluoxetine (p = .84), and 7.5 points from baseline (28.8) with nortriptyline (p = .30), with no significant differences among the therapies. The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significantly (p < or = .05) greater improvement (decrease) in MADRS scores than olanzapine at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 7; than fluoxetine at weeks 2 through 5; and than nortriptyline at weeks 1 through 4. A post hoc analysis of a subgroup of patients who had an SSRI treatment failure during their current MDD episode (N = 314) revealed that the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination group had a significantly (p = .005) greater decrease in MADRS scores than the olanzapine group at endpoint. Safety data for the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination were similar to those for its component monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination did not differ significantly from the other therapies at endpoint, although it demonstrated a more rapid response that was sustained until the end of treatment. The results raised several methodological questions, and recommendations are made regarding the criteria for study entry and randomization.

A double-blind, randomized study of olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for major depression with psychotic features.

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine (OLZ) monotherapy and an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) with placebo (PLA) for unipolar major depression with psychotic features. Under a single protocol, two 8-week, double-blind trials were conducted at 27 sites. Patients (n = 124 trial 1, n = 125 trial 2) were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: OLZ (5 to 20 mg/d), PLA, or OFC (olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d + fluoxetine 20 to 80 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score. For trial 1, endpoint improvement for the OLZ group (-14.9) was not significantly different from the PLA or OFC groups. The OFC group had significantly greater endpoint improvement (-20.9) than the PLA group (-10.4, P = 0.001); this significant difference was present within 7 days of therapy and maintained at every subsequent visit. The OFC group also had significantly higher response rate (63.6%) than the PLA (28.0%, P = 0.004) or OLZ (34.9%, P = 0.027) groups. For trial 2, there were no significant differences among treatment groups on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores or response rates. The combination exhibited a comparable safety profile with OLZ monotherapy and no significant increases in extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. Patients with major depression with psychotic features treated with OLZ monotherapy did not demonstrate significant depressive symptom improvement compared with placebo in either trial; however, an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significant improvement compared with placebo in one trial and was well tolerated.

Comparative effect of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs on neurocognition in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus low doses of haloperidol.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of antipsychotic medication on neurocognitive function remains controversial, especially since most previous work has compared the effects of novel antipsychotic medications with those of high doses of conventional medications. This study compares the neurocognitive effects of olanzapine and low doses of haloperidol in patients with first-episode psychosis. METHOD: Patients with a first episode of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder (N=167) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with olanzapine (mean modal dose= 9.63 mg/day) or haloperidol (mean modal dose=4.60 mg/day) for the 12-week acute phase of a 2-year study. The patients were assessed with a battery of neurocognitive tests at baseline and 12 weeks after beginning treatment. RESULTS: An unweighted neurocognitive composite score, composed of measures of verbal fluency, motor functions, working memory, verbal memory, and vigilance, improved significantly with both haloperidol and olanzapine treatment (effect sizes of 0.20 and 0.36, respectively, no significant difference between groups). A weighted composite score developed from a principal-component analysis of the same measures improved to a significantly greater degree with olanzapine, compared with haloperidol. Anticholinergic use, extrapyramidal symptoms, and estimated IQ had little effect on the statistical differentiation of the medications, although duration of illness had a modest effect. The correlations of cognitive improvement with changes in clinical characteristics and with side effects of treatment were significant for patients who received haloperidol but not for patients who received olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine has a beneficial effect on neurocognitive function in patients with a first episode of psychosis. However, in a comparison of the effects of olanzapine and low doses of haloperidol, the difference in benefit is small.

Long-term antidepressant efficacy and safety of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: a 76-week open-label study.

BACKGROUND: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination has demonstrated effectiveness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Although this combination is being used by prescribers, this is the first study to examine long-term use. Long-term efficacy and safety were therefore investigated in a group of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without TRD. METHOD: 560 patients who met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for MDD were enrolled in this 76-week, open-label study (Feb. 2000-July 2002). The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score was the primary efficacy measure. Safety was assessed via adverse events, vital signs, laboratory analytes, electrocardiography, and extrapyramidal symptom measures. RESULTS: MADRS mean total scores decreased 7 points from baseline (31.6 [N = 552]) at 1/2 week of treatment, 11 points at 1 week of treatment, and 18 points at 8 weeks of treatment. This effect was maintained to endpoint with a mean decrease of 22 points at 76 weeks. Response and remission rates for the total sample were high (62% and 56%, respectively), and the relapse rate was low (15%). Response, remission, and relapse rates for TRD patients (N = 145) were 53%, 44%, and 25%, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were somnolence, weight gain, dry mouth, increased appetite, and headache. At endpoint, there were no clinically meaningful changes in vital signs, laboratory analytes, or electrocardiography. There were no significant increases on any measure of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination showed rapid, robust, and sustained improvement in depressive symptoms in patients with MDD, including patients with TRD. The long-term safety profile of the combination was similar to that of its component monotherapies.

Assessing and interpreting treatment effects in longitudinal clinical trials with missing data.

Treatment effects are often evaluated by comparing change over time in outcome measures; however, valid analyses of longitudinal data can be problematic, particularly if some data are missing. For decades, the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach has been a common method of handling missing data. Considerable advances in statistical methodology and our ability to implement those methods have been made in recent years. Thus, it is appropriate to reconsider analytic approaches for longitudinal data. This review examines the following from a clinical perspective: 1) the characteristics of missing data that influence analytic choices; 2) the attributes of common methods of handling missing data; and 3) the use of the data characteristics and the attributes of the various methods, along with empirical evidence, to develop a robust approach for the analysis and interpretation of data from longitudinal clinical trials. We propose that, in many settings, the primary efficacy analysis should use a repeated measures, likelihood-based, mixed-effects modeling approach, with LOCF used as a secondary, composite measure of efficacy, safety, and tolerability. We illustrate how repeated-measures analyses can be used to enhance decision-making, and we review the caveats that remain regarding the use of LOCF as a composite measure.

Olanzapine in the acute treatment of bipolar I disorder with a history of rapid cycling.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients with bipolar disorder are characterized by a rapidly cycling course and are particularly resistant to conventional treatment. METHODS: This secondary analysis, defined a priori, was conducted on a larger data set from patients with bipolar I disorder to determine the efficacy of a 3-week treatment with the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, n=19) versus placebo (n=26) in patients with >or=4 episodes in the preceding year. RESULTS: Significantly fewer placebo patients completed treatment (34.6 vs. 73.7%, P=0.016), and more than half discontinued due to lack of efficacy (53.8 vs. 21.1%, P=0.035). Olanzapine reduced Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total scores significantly more than placebo (-13.9 vs. -4.1, P=0.011). Clinical responses, defined as >or=50% improvement in YMRS, were achieved in 58% of olanzapine patients, compared with 28% of placebo patients (P=0.066). Extrapyramidal symptoms were not significantly changed in either group. Somnolence was the most common adverse event in both groups (olanzapine: 52.6%, placebo: 23.1%; P=0.060). No event occurred significantly more frequently with olanzapine than with placebo. No patients discontinued due to an adverse event. LIMITATIONS: The duration of this study was limited to 3 weeks, precluding conclusions about long-term efficacy of olanzapine. Moreover, a sizeable placebo effect was obtained, possibly masking optimal therapeutic effect. Despite these limitations, treatment differences in efficacy were highly significant. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that olanzapine was effective in reducing symptoms of mania and well tolerated in patients with bipolar I disorder with a rapid-cycling course.

Economic, clinical, and quality-of-life outcomes associated with olanzapine treatment in mania. Results from a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to determine the economic, clinical, and quality-of-life outcomes associated with olanzapine treatment in patients diagnosed with mania. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder with manic or mixed episodes were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. The study design comprised a 3-week acute phase followed by a 49-week open label extension. In the open label extension, the use of lithium and fluoxetine was permitted for patients who experienced breakthrough symptoms. Clinical, economic, and quality-of-life outcomes of treatment were assessed. RESULTS: During the acute phase, olanzapine patients experienced a statistically significant greater mean improvement from baseline on the Y-MRS total score compared to the placebo patients. In the open label extension, patients experienced a statistically significant mean change of 11.8 units on the Y-MRS from the end of the acute phase. When compared to costs incurred in the previous 12 months of therapy, patients experienced savings of almost $900 per month during the 49 weeks of olanzapine therapy. These cost savings were largely driven by reductions in in-patient costs during the open label extension. Health-related quality of life improvements measured by the SF-36 were seen on several dimensions both in the 3-week acute phase as well as in the 49-week open label extension. CONCLUSION: From a clinical, economic, and quality-of-life outcomes standpoint, olanzapine had a significant impact in the treatment of mania, and could be considered a cost-effective treatment option for use in this population if these findings are extrapolated to non-clinical trial populations.