Effect of galcanezumab in women with episodic migraine meeting criteria for menstrually related migraine: A post hoc analysis of EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated galcanezumab for migraine prevention in patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for menstrually related migraine (MRM). METHODS: Patients were identified post hoc from three double-blind, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials in patients with episodic migraine. Patients completed a 1-month prospective baseline period and up to 6 months (EVOLVE-1 and -2, studies pooled) of double-blind treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month) or placebo. Menses and headache information were recorded by electronic daily diary. Patients with a migraine attack starting during the 5-day perimenstrual interval (first day of bleeding ± 2 days) for ≥2 of their first three diary-recorded menstrual cycles were categorized as having MRM. The primary efficacy measure was mean change in monthly migraine headache days from baseline, averaged over Months 4 through 6. Response rates, change in monthly perimenstrual migraine headache days, monthly non-perimenstrual migraine headache days, and quality of life were also assessed. RESULTS: Post hoc MRM analysis criteria were met by 462/1133 women (41%). Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine headache days were 9.7 (±3.1; n = 146) for galcanezumab-treated patients and 9.6 (±2.8; n = 316) for placebo-treated patients. The mean change (standard error [SE]) in migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -5.1 days (±0.39) for galcanezumab versus -3.2 (±0.35) for placebo (p < 0.001). The mean change (SE) in perimenstrual migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -0.75 days (±0.08) for galcanezumab versus -0.49 (±0.07) for placebo (p = 0.004). For migraine headache days outside the perimenstrual period, the mean change in migraine headache days was -4.6 (±0.38) for galcanezumab and -2.8 (±0.33) for placebo (p < 0.001). Improvements in response rates and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire were also observed over Months 4 through 6. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab was effective for migraine prevention in women with MRM.

Changes in migraine interictal burden following treatment with galcanezumab: Results from a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in interictal burden with galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). BACKGROUND: The disruptive effects of migraine occur both during attacks (ictal period) and between attacks (interictal period), affecting work, school, family, and social life. Migraine clinical trials typically assess ictal burden endpoints, neglecting interictal burden. METHODS: CONQUER was a 3-month, double-blind study that randomized adult patients with EM or CM who had experienced failure of two to four standard-of-care migraine preventive medication categories to receive monthly galcanezumab (n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), followed by 3 months of open-label galcanezumab. The mean change in interictal burden, a secondary objective, was measured using the four-item Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4). The total score for MIBS-4 can range from zero to 12, with scores ≥5 indicating severe interictal burden. Post hoc analyses evaluated shifts in MIBS-4 severity categories and item-level improvement. RESULTS: The MIBS-4 total score indicated severe interictal burden at baseline (mean [SD]: all patients, 5.5 [3.5]; EM, 5.0 [3.4]; CM, 6.2 [3.5]). Reductions in the MIBS-4 score were significantly greater with galcanezumab versus placebo at Month 3 (mean [SE]: all patients -1.9 [0.2] vs. -0.8 [0.2], p < 0.0001; EM, -1.8 [0.3] vs. -1.1 [0.3], p = 0.033; CM, -1.8 [0.4] vs. -0.3 [0.4], p < 0.001), with further improvement at Month 6 after all patients had received galcanezumab (mean [SE]: all patients, -2.4 [0.2] vs. -2.0 [0.2]; EM, -2.3 [0.3] vs. -2.2 [0.3]; CM, -2.1 [0.4] vs. -1.5 [0.4]). The percentage of patients with severe interictal burden decreased substantially for the galcanezumab-treated patients, from 59% (137/232) at baseline to 27% (58/217) at Month 6 (EM from 51% [70/137] to 23% [30/131]; CM from 71% [67/95] to 33% [28/86]). CONCLUSION: In addition to the known efficacy of galcanezumab in the ictal period, these findings suggest treatment with galcanezumab results in a significant reduction in interictal burden.

Reductions in acute medication use and healthcare resource utilization in patients with chronic migraine: a secondary analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of galcanezumab with open-label extension (REGAIN).

AIMS: To analyze secondary objectives of the REGAIN study related to acute headache medication use and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide. METHODS: Adults with chronic migraine (N = 1,113) were randomized (2:1:1) and treated with double-blind monthly injections of placebo, galcanezumab-120 mg, or galcanenzumab-240 mg for 3 months, followed by a 9-month open-label extension with 120 or 240 mg/month galcanezumab. Headache and medication information was collected by daily eDiary. HCRU was reported for the 6 months before randomization, monthly thereafter, and converted to rate per 100-patient-years. RESULTS: At baseline, 63-64% of patients met criteria for acute headache medication overuse. At Month 3, incidence of headache medication overuse in the galcanezumab groups (33% and 33%) was significantly lower than in the placebo group (46%, both p < .001) and was 16% and 23% in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. From a baseline of 14.5 to 15.5, reduction in mean number of monthly migraine headache days with acute headache medication use was also significantly greater in the galcanezumab groups at Month 3 (-4.2 and -4.9) than in placebo (-2.6, both p < .001), with reductions of -6.8 and -7.6 in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. Migraine-specific HCRU rates decreased for all groups, with no significant between-group differences at Month 3. At Month 12, in the two previous-galcanezumab groups, emergency room visits decreased by 58% and 75%, hospital admissions by 100%, and healthcare professional visits by 54% and 67%. LIMITATIONS: Only 3 months of double-blind, placebo-controlled data, a longer HCRU recall period for baseline than postbaseline, and patients receiving care in the clinical trial itself, may limit generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with galcanezumab resulted in significant reductions in headache medication overuse and migraine headache days requiring acute medication use, with notable reductions in migraine-specific HCRU.

Long-term treatment with galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine: results from the open-label extension of the REGAIN study.

BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, was found to be safe and efficacious for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine based on the randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind period of the REGAIN study. Long-term safety and efficacy were assessed in an open-label extension. METHODS: Patients 18-65 years old with chronic migraine completing the 3-month double-blind period of REGAIN could enter a 9-month open-label extension (OLE; months 4-12). Upon entering the OLE, patients received a 240-mg galcanezumab loading dose, then 120 mg at the next month, with flexible dosing thereafter (120 or 240 mg/month). The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in the number of monthly migraine headache days from double-blind baseline to month 12. Other endpoints included response rates (based on percent reduction in monthly migraine headache days from double-blind baseline to month 12), safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Of patients who completed double-blind treatment, 1022 (99%) entered the OLE, with 81% completing month 12. From a baseline of 19.4 monthly migraine headache days at the beginning of the double-blind period, patients at month 12 in the previous placebo, 120-mg, and 240-mg galcanezumab groups had a mean change of -8.5, -9.0, and -8.0, respectively (SE = 0.43 to 0.55, within-group p's < .001). At month 12, the percentage of patients with ≥50% response was 57%, 57%, and 53%, respectively. Percentage with ≥75% response was 32%, 31%, and 30%, respectively. Percentage with 100% response was 8%, 6%, and 6%, respectively. There were no significant new safety findings during the open-label period. The incidence of discontinuation from the OLE due to adverse events was 5%. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab was effective, safe, and well-tolerated, with high adherence, for up to 12 months of treatment in patients with chronic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02614261; www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02614261.

Galcanezumab in Patients with Multiple Previous Migraine Preventive Medication Category Failures: Results from the Open-Label Period of the CONQUER Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Results from the open-label extension of the phase 3b CONQUER trial are presented to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, for up to 6 months in patients with multiple prior migraine preventive treatment failures. METHODS: Patients were 18-75 years old with episodic or chronic migraine and 2-4 standard-of-care migraine preventive medication category failures. After 3 months of randomized treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month with 240 mg loading dose; n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), patients entered a 3-month open-label extension (120 mg/month galcanezumab with a blinded 240 mg loading dose for previous-placebo patients). Primary efficacy measure was mean change from double-blind baseline in monthly migraine headache days. RESULTS: A total of 432/449 patients (96%) who entered open-label treatment completed the study. Mean change in monthly migraine headache days in the total population, which was - 1.3 for placebo and - 4.4 for galcanezumab patients at the end of double-blind treatment (p < 0.001), was - 5.2 and - 5.6, respectively, at the end of open-label treatment with galcanezumab. Among patients with episodic migraine, mean change in monthly migraine headache days had been - 0.6 for placebo and - 2.8 for galcanezumab after double-blind treatment (p < 0.001) and was - 4.5 and - 3.8, respectively, after open-label treatment. Among patients with chronic migraine, mean change in monthly migraine headache days had been - 2.5 for placebo and - 6.6 for galcanezumab after double-blind treatment (p < 0.001) and was - 6.5 and - 8.2, respectively, after open-label treatment. Adverse events were similar to those observed during double-blind placebo treatment. Review of data in elderly patients (65-75 years of age) indicated that galcanezumab was well tolerated in this age group, with no safety issues identified. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab was effective and safe during open-label treatment in patients who had experienced failures of previous migraine preventives. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03559257.

Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who require migraine preventive treatment have not been able to tolerate or have not responded to multiple previous preventive medications. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab, an antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in patients with migraine who had not benefited from preventive medications from two to four categories. METHODS: CONQUER was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial done at 64 sites (hospitals, clinics, or research centres) in 12 countries (Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the USA). Patients were 18-75 years of age, with episodic or chronic migraine, with migraine onset before the age of 50 years, who had a documented failure of preventive medications from two to four drug categories in the past 10 years owing to lack of efficacy or tolerability, or both. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive subcutaneous placebo or galcanezumab 120 mg per month (with a 240 mg loading dose administered as two 120 mg injections) for 3 months. For masking purposes, patients receiving placebo also received two injections during the first dosing visit. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random sequence by means of an interactive web-response system stratified by country and migraine frequency (low frequency episodic migraine, four to fewer than eight migraine headache days per month; high frequency episodic migraine, eight to 14 migraine headache days per month and fewer than 15 headache days per month; chronic migraine, at least eight migraine headache days per month and at least 15 headache days per month). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days during the 3-month treatment period in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03559257, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2018, and March 21, 2019, 462 participants with episodic (269 [58%]) or chronic (193 [42%]) migraine were randomly assigned and received at least one injection with placebo (n=230) or galcanezumab (n=232). Galcanezumab-treated patients had significantly greater reduction in migraine headache days versus placebo across months 1-3. The galcanezumab group had on average 4·1 fewer monthly migraine headache days compared with baseline (13·4), while the placebo group had on average 1·0 fewer than at baseline (13·0; between-group difference -3·1 [95% CI -3·9 to -2·3]; p<0·0001; effect size=0·72). Types and number of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between galcanezumab and placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 122 (53%) of 230 patients in the placebo group and 119 (51%) of 232 patients in the galcanezumab group. There were four serious adverse events during the study, two (1%) reported in the placebo group and two (1%) reported in the galcanezumab group. INTERPRETATION: Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in the preventive treatment of migraine and was safe and well tolerated in patients for whom multiple previous standard-of-care preventive treatments had failed. Galcanezumab might represent an important treatment option for patients who have not benefited from or tolerated previous standard-of-care treatments. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Rapid Onset of Effect of Galcanezumab for the Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Analysis of the EVOLVE Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate onset of effect of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine. BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide and is indicated for preventive treatment of migraine. DESIGN/METHODS: Data on the primary outcome measure were analyzed from 2 previously published double-blind, Phase 3 studies (EVOLVE-1 [N = 858] and EVOLVE-2 [N = 915]) wherein adult patients with episodic migraine were randomized to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab 120 mg (with 240-mg loading dose) or 240 mg or placebo for up to 6 months. Monthly onset of effect was defined as the earliest month at which galcanezumab achieved and subsequently maintained statistical superiority to placebo on the mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs). If onset occurred in Month 1, weekly onset was evaluated and defined as the earliest week at which galcanezumab statistically separated from placebo and maintained statistical separation for remaining weeks in that month. Day of onset of effect was also analyzed, as were monthly and weekly onset, for occurrence of ≥50% reduction from baseline in number of MHDs. RESULTS: For both studies, change from baseline in monthly MHDs showed a statistically significant separation of galcanezumab from placebo at Month 1 and each subsequent month (each P < .001). Analysis of the first month for both studies indicated onset of effect in the first week, with galcanezumab-treated patients having significantly higher odds of having fewer MHDs in the first week (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] for EVOLVE-1, 2.71 [2.00, 3.66], and for EVOLVE-2, 2.88 [2.16, 3.86]; both P < .001) and each subsequent week compared with placebo-treated patients (P ≤ .004). Daily analysis showed onset of effect at Day 1 (first day after injection day). Galcanezumab also demonstrated superiority to placebo on occurrence of ≥50% reduction in MHDs starting at Week 1 (percentage of patients with 50% response in galcanezumab group vs placebo group for EVOLVE-1, 54.3% vs 32.4% [P < .001], and for EVOLVE-2, 59.4% vs 38.0% [P < .001]). CONCLUSION: Rapid onset of preventive effect on the first day after injection of galcanezumab was confirmed in both studies of episodic migraine.

Galcanezumab in chronic migraine: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled REGAIN study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. METHODS: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of LY2951742 in patients with chronic migraine (Evaluation of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine [REGAIN]) was a phase 3 study with a 3-month double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase and a 9-month open-label extension. Eligible patients 18 to 65 years of age with chronic migraine were randomized 2:1:1 to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 558), galcanezumab 120 mg (with a 240-mg loading dose, n = 278), or galcanezumab 240 mg (n = 277). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) during the 3-month double-blind treatment phase. RESULTS: Mean number of monthly MHDs at baseline was 19.4 for the total sample. Both galcanezumab dose groups demonstrated greater overall mean reduction in the number of monthly MHDs compared to placebo (placebo -2.7, galcanezumab 120 mg -4.8, galcanezumab 240 mg -4.6) (p < 0.001 for each dose compared to placebo). There were no clinically meaningful differences between galcanezumab doses and placebo on any safety or tolerability outcome except for a higher incidence of treatment-emergent injection-site reaction (p < 0.01), injection-site erythema (p < 0.001), injection-site pruritus (p < 0.01), and sinusitis (p < 0.05) in the galcanezumab 240-mg group relative to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Both doses of galcanezumab were superior to placebo in reducing the number of monthly MHDs. Galcanezumab appears efficacious, safe, and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02614261. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This interventional study provides Class I evidence that galcanezumab is superior to placebo in the reduction of the number of monthly MHDs.

Safety of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine: A randomized placebo-controlled dose-ranging Phase 2b study.

Background Safety findings from a Phase 2b study of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide, for prevention of migraine (NCT02163993) are reported here. Methods Patients aged 18-65 years with episodic migraine were evaluated in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized study. After randomization, 410 patients were administered 5, 50, 120 or 300 mg of galcanezumab or placebo subcutaneously once every 4 weeks for 12 weeks, followed by a post-treatment off-drug period lasting 12 weeks. Results Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were primarily rated as mild to moderate. Serious adverse events reported in galcanezumab dose groups were appendicitis, Crohn's disease, suicidal ideation, and congenital ankyloglossia in an infant of a paternal pregnancy; each of these were reported by one patient. Adverse events leading to discontinuation with galcanezumab treatment were abdominal pain, visual impairment, and upper limb fracture, each reported by one patient. Treatment-emergent injection-site reactions were reported significantly more frequently ( p = 0.013) with galcanezumab (13.9%) than with placebo (5.8%). Injection-site pain was the most common injection-site reaction (galcanezumab 11.4%; placebo 2.9%, p = 0.004). Upper respiratory tract infection (galcanezumab 10.0%; placebo 8.8%) and nasopharyngitis (galcanezumab 7.0%; placebo 2.2%) also occurred more frequently with galcanezumab treatment. Potential hypersensitivity events were reported at similar frequencies in galcanezumab (3.3%) and placebo (5.1%) groups. Incidence of treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies in galcanezumab dose groups (4.6% of patients during treatment period) did not appear to have any meaningful effects on safety, the pharmacokinetics of galcanezumab, or its ability to bind to the target ligand. Conclusion The results from this 3-month Phase 2b study support the initiation of larger Phase 3 trials of longer duration.

Quality of life in children and adolescents with bipolar I depression treated with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination.

BACKGROUND: We examined the efficacy of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) in improving health-related quality of life (QoL) in the treatment of bipolar depression in children and adolescents. METHODS: Patients aged 10-17 years with bipolar I disorder, depressed episode, baseline children's depression rating scale-revised (CDRS-R) total score ≥40, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≤15, and YMRS-item 1 ≤ 2 were randomized to OFC (6/25-12/50 mg/day olanzapine/fluoxetine; n = 170) or placebo (n = 85) for up to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Patients and parents completed the revised KINDL questionnaire for measuring health-related QoL in children and adolescents (KINDL-R) at baseline and endpoint. The mean change in CDRS-R total and item scores were used to compare improvement in symptomatology in patients taking OFC and placebo. Tests were 2-sided using a Type I error cutoff of 0.05, and no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. RESULTS: Baseline QoL as measured by the KINDL-R was substantially impaired relative to published norms for a healthy school-based sample. OFC-treated patients demonstrated an improvement over placebo at endpoint with respect to mean change from baseline in the patient-rated KINDL-R Self-esteem subscale score (p = 0.028), and in the parent KINDL-R ratings of emotional well-being (p = 0.020), Self-esteem (p = 0.030), and Family (p = 0.006). At endpoint, OFC-treated patients still had a lower QoL compared to the normative population. OFC showed significant improvement (p ≤ 0.05) versus placebo on the CDRS-R total score and on 7 of the 17 CDRS-R items. CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 10-17 years with an acute episode of bipolar depression and their parents reported greater improvements (parents noticed improvements in more areas than did their offspring) on some aspects of QoL when treated with OFC compared with placebo. However, after 8 weeks of treatment, KINDL-R endpoint scores remained lower than those of the, presumably healthy, control population. Clinical trial registration information A Study for Assessing Treatment of Patients Ages 10-17 with Bipolar Depression; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00844857.

Clinical outcomes with olanzapine long-acting injection: impact of the 3-hour observation period on patient satisfaction and well-being.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present analysis is to determine the impact of the 3-hour observation period for olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) on patient satisfaction and well-being by comparing data collected before and after its implementation. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of patients treated with olanzapine LAI in 1) a 6-month fixed-dose randomized controlled trial and/or 2) a 6-year open-label safety study. This analysis was limited to patients with schizophrenia who were treated with olanzapine LAI consistent with the approved indication and dosing recommendations of the European Union Summary of Product Characteristics (N=966). Of the 966 patients, the analysis further focused only on those patients who received both 1) at least one injection before the implementation of the 3-hour observation period and 2) at least one injection after implementation of the 3-hour observation period (N=487). Patient satisfaction was assessed with the three-item Patient Satisfaction with Medication Questionnaire-Modified. Responses were averaged across all postbaseline visits occurring before (ie, without) the implementation of the 3-hour observation period and across all postbaseline visits occurring after (ie, with) the implementation of the 3-hour observation period. In addition, the rate of postinjection delirium/sedation syndrome events was calculated. RESULTS: There was no meaningful change after implementation of the 3-hour observation period in satisfaction (before: mean [SD] =4.0 [1.02] and after: mean [SD] =4.1 [0.82]), preference for olanzapine LAI over oral medication (before: mean [SD] =4.0 [0.90] and after: mean [SD] =4.1 [0.77]), or ratings of satisfaction regarding side effects (before: mean [SD] =1.9 [0.79] and after: mean [SD] =1.8 [0.60]). For the total population (N=966), postinjection delirium/sedation syndrome occurred in 26 (0.07%) of 38,010 injections. CONCLUSION: For patients with schizophrenia receiving treatment with olanzapine LAI, the 3-hour observation period had no impact on their satisfaction with the medication or on their subjective well-being.

A 52-Week Study of Olanzapine with a Randomized Behavioral Weight Counseling Intervention in Adolescents with Schizophrenia or Bipolar I Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the 52-week safety/tolerability of oral olanzapine for adolescents with schizophrenia or bipolar mania and compare effectiveness of a standard versus intense behavioral weight intervention in mitigating risk of weight gain. METHODS: Patients 13-17 years old with schizophrenia (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for Children [BPRS-C] total score >30; item score ≥3 for hallucinations, delusions, or peculiar fantasies) or bipolar I disorder (manic or mixed episode; Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] total score ≥15) received open-label olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day) and were randomized to standard (n = 102; a single weight counseling session) or intense (n = 101; weight counseling at each study visit) weight intervention. The primary outcome measure was mean change in body mass index (BMI) from baseline to 52 weeks using mixed-model repeated measures. Symptomatology was also assessed. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between groups were observed in mean baseline-to-52-week change in BMI (standard: +3.6 kg/m2; intense: +2.8 kg/m2; p = 0.150) or weight (standard: +12.1 kg; intense: +9.6 kg; p = 0.148). Percentage of patients at endpoint who had gained ≥15% of their baseline weight was 40% for the standard group and 31% for the intense group (p = 0.187). Safety/tolerability results were generally consistent with those of previous olanzapine studies in adolescents, with the most notable exception being the finding of a mean decrease in prolactin. On symptomatology measures, patients with schizophrenia had a mean baseline-to-52-week change in BPRS-C of -32.5 (standard deviation [SD] = 10.8), and patients with bipolar disorder had a mean change in YMRS of -16.7 (SD = 8.9), with clinically and statistically significant improvement starting at 3-4 days for each. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term weight gain was high in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between the standard or intense behavioral weight interventions in BMI or weight. Safety, tolerability, and effectiveness findings were generally consistent with the known profile of olanzapine in adolescents.

Baseline characteristics and hospitalizations in patients with schizophrenia receiving olanzapine long-acting injection: an interim analysis from a non-interventional, prospective observational safety study.

BACKGROUND: Depot antipsychotics are a treatment option for medication nonadherence in patients with schizophrenia. Nonadherence can lead to increased relapse and hospitalization rates. This article reports hospitalization data before and after initiation of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI), a depot antipsychotic. METHODS: Data were assessed from an ongoing, multinational, prospective, observational post-authorisation safety study being conducted to evaluate post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS), an adverse reaction that can occur following injection of olanzapine LAI. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with schizophrenia, were prescribed olanzapine LAI, and lived outside the United States. Psychiatric hospitalization and medication data were collected retrospectively for the 6-month period before study entry and prospectively throughout the study. Paired t-tests and McNemar's tests were used to assess changes in hospitalization incidence and duration. Stepwise Cox proportional hazards models assessed factors associated with hospitalizations. Analyses were based on data from the first 3 years of the continuously enrolling study (N = 668). RESULTS: The average duration of olanzapine LAI exposure for all patients was 0.768 years. Of the 529 patients who received at least 1 injection of olanzapine LAI and were not hospitalized at study entry, 8.1% had at least 1 subsequent psychiatric hospitalization with a mean duration of 2.0 days. Of the 288 patients who had a >6-month follow-up, 8.3% had at least 1 post-baseline psychiatric hospitalization with a mean duration of 2.3 days. The incidence of hospitalizations in the 6-month period after treatment was significantly lower than that in the 6-month period prior to treatment (8.3 vs 32.6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Furthermore, mean hospitalization duration decreased from 11.5 days in the 6-month period before treatment to 2.3 days in the 6-month period after treatment (P < 0.001). Psychiatric hospitalization in the prior 12 months (P < 0.0001) and recreational drug use within 24 h of baseline visit (P = 0.015) were identified as potential predictors of time to first psychiatric hospitalization after beginning to take olanzapine LAI. At the time of interim analysis, 5 PDSS events had occurred, which was too few for a full analysis of those events. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate a significant reduction in the incidence and days of hospitalization from the 6-month period before to the 6-month period after olanzapine LAI initiation, which suggests reduced relapse and hospitalization during treatment. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the observational nature of the study and use of retrospective baseline data.

Postmortem redistribution of olanzapine following intramuscular administration of olanzapine pamoate in dogs.

The potential for postmortem redistribution of olanzapine was investigated in beagle dogs. Olanzapine pamoate monohydrate was administered once every 14 days by intramuscular injection for 3 months to fed male dogs (n=15) at a dose of 20 mg/kg olanzapine (equivalent to 46 mg/kg olanzapine pamoate monohydrate). Blood samples were collected after the fifth (Day 57) and sixth (Day 71) doses to determine olanzapine and N-oxide olanzapine concentrations. On Day 71 at 72 h postdose, dogs were euthanized and placed on their backs without additional manipulation and held for postmortem blood, urine, and tissue collection at room temperature for up to 168 h postdose (96 h after euthanasia). Concentrations of olanzapine and N-oxide olanzapine were determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS). Postmortem olanzapine concentrations in blood increased up to seven-fold compared to the last quantified antemortem blood concentration. Olanzapine concentrations in vein tissue samples (surrogates for peripheral blood) also increased, whereas other tissue concentrations, such as myocardium, lung, liver, and kidney decreased over the postmortem period. An increase in blood concentration of olanzapine after death was observed in all but one animal, suggesting that postmortem redistribution may occur in dogs following biweekly intramuscular administration of olanzapine pamoate monohydrate. The rise in olanzapine concentrations in blood after death in this study may potentially be attributed to diffusion from multiple tissues to blood and, to a lesser extent, reduction of the N-oxide olanzapine metabolite back to olanzapine. However, the generalizability of these results to humans cannot be confirmed by the present study.

Olanzapine long-acting injection: a review of first experiences of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) for the treatment of schizophrenia was associated with a cluster of symptoms termed post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS) in a small percentage (~2%) of patients during clinical trials. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the rate and clinical characteristics of PDSS since olanzapine LAI entered commercial use. METHODS: Cases of PDSS were identified from all reported adverse events during worldwide commercial use of olanzapine LAI through to 1 March 2014. Data sources included two ongoing post-marketing safety studies as well as spontaneously reported adverse events from routine clinical practice over a 5-year period (1 March 2009 to 1 March 2014). RESULTS: A total of 338 PDSS events were identified. Of these, 91% occurred within 1 hour of injection, and 52% of these occurred within 15 minutes. None of the PDSS events in this analysis were fatal, and most resolved within 72 hours. The most common symptoms (occurring in >30% of cases) were sedation (61%), confusion (56%), dysarthria (54%), somnolence (46%), dizziness (45%) and disorientation (35%). Overall, PDSS occurred with approximately 0.07% of injections and in 0.46-1.03% of patients (reporting and incidence rates from spontaneous reports and post-marketing safety studies, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The PDSS events reported during routine clinical use of olanzapine LAI are generally similar in incidence and presentation to those reported in clinical trials. Caution should be applied when interpreting spontaneously reported rates of adverse events, however, due to potential under-reporting. Implemented risk-minimisation activities may contribute substantially to the identification and appropriate management of patients with PDSS in clinical practice.

Olanzapine/Fluoxetine combination in children and adolescents with bipolar I depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) for the acute treatment of bipolar depression in children and adolescents. METHOD: Patients 10 to 17 years of age with bipolar I disorder (BP-I), depressed episode, baseline Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total score ≥40, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≤15, and YMRS-item 1 ≤2 were randomized to OFC (6/25-12/50 mg/day olanzapine/fluoxetine; n = 170) or placebo (n = 85) for up to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. The primary efficacy measure was mean change in CDRS-R using mixed-model repeated-measures methodology. RESULTS: Baseline-to-week-8 least-squares mean change in CDRS-R total score was greater for OFC-treated patients than for placebo-treated patients (-28.4 versus -23.4, p = .003; effect size = .46), with between-group differences statistically significant at week 1 (p = .02) and all subsequent visits (all p < .01). Rates of and times to response and remission were statistically significantly greater for OFC- than for placebo-treated patients. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in the OFC group were weight gain, increased appetite, and somnolence. Mean weight gain at patient's endpoint was significantly greater for OFC- than for placebo-treated patients (4.4 kg versus 0.5 kg, p < .001). Treatment-emergent hyperlipidemia was very common among OFC-treated patients. Abnormal increases in hepatic analytes, prolactin, and corrected QT interval (QTc) were also common or very common but generally not clinically significant. CONCLUSION: In this study, OFC was superior to placebo, and has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the acute treatment of bipolar I depression in patients 10 to 17 years of age. Benefits should be weighed against the risk of adverse events, particularly weight gain and hyperlipidemia. Clinical trial registration information-A Study for Assessing Treatment of Patients Ages 10-17 with Bipolar Depression; http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00844857.

Within-drug benefit-risk evaluation of olanzapine long-acting injection at one and two years of treatment.

We sought to evaluate the within-drug benefit-risk of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Subjects included 1192 adult patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who participated in clinical trials with the opportunity for at least two years of continuous treatment with olanzapine LAI (45-405 mg every two to four weeks). Using the Benefit Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework, we evaluated frequency versus duration of benefits and risks commonly observed with atypical antipsychotics. We then used the Transparent Uniform Risk/Benefit Overview (TURBO) method, which weighs the drug's two most medically serious and/or frequent adverse events versus its primary benefit (effectiveness) and an ancillary benefit. The most frequent events among all patients were remaining free of relapse (91.4% for an average of 306 days at one year, 88.4% for 546 days at two years) and symptomatic remission (81.7% for an average of 239 days at one year, 84.1% for 438 days at two years). One- and two-year incidence of ≥7% weight gain was 33.3% and 41.7%. Incidences for sexual dysfunction, hyperprolactinemia, and post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS) were <2%. TURBO ratings unanimously selected PDSS and weight gain as key risks and resulted in an average score in the acceptable benefit-risk balance range.

Comparison of olanzapine long-acting injection and oral olanzapine: a 2-year, randomized, open-label study in outpatients with schizophrenia.

We compared long-term treatment effectiveness of monthly olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) with that of oral olanzapine. Outpatients with 2 or more episodes of psychotic worsening in the past 24 months with Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score of lower than 70 were randomized to 405 mg/4 weeks of olanzapine LAI (n = 264) or 10 mg/d of oral olanzapine (n = 260) for 2 years of open-label treatment. Dosing thereafter was flexible (150-405 mg/4 weeks of LAI vs 5-20 mg/d of oral). Primary outcome was time to all-cause discontinuation. At baseline, patients were clinically stable (mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score of 57). Seventeen percent of patients had been psychiatrically hospitalized in the previous 6 months, and 4.6% were rated nonadherent in the month before study entry. The groups did not differ significantly in median time to all-cause discontinuation (645 days for LAI, 678 days for oral; P = 0.61), discontinuation rate (53.8% for LAI, 51.2% for oral; P = 0.60), or relapse rate (20.1% for LAI, 18.5% for oral; P = 0.66). Postbaseline psychiatric hospitalization rate was low for both groups (7.6% for LAI, 9.2% for oral), but mean hospitalization duration was significantly longer for oral patients (1.80 days [20 for those hospitalized] vs 0.43 days [6 for those hospitalized], P = 0.02). There were no clinically significant group differences in adverse events or safety measures. No post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome events occurred. In conclusion, olanzapine LAI and oral olanzapine were similarly effective and well tolerated for up to 2 years of treatment in patients with schizophrenia. Treatment discontinuation for olanzapine LAI was similar to that of oral olanzapine, despite the 3-hour post-injection observation period and other precautionary procedures related to risk of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome.

Pharmacokinetics of olanzapine long-acting injection: the clinical perspective.

Olanzapine long-acting injection (OLAI) is a sustained-release depot antipsychotic for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. Our objective was to explain the pharmacokinetics of OLAI to provide clinical insight. Simulation models and data from clinical trials are presented. Olanzapine concentrations were observed immediately upon injection. Half-life was ∼30 days, controlled by the slow rate of intramuscular absorption rather than the 30-h elimination rate-based half-life of oral olanzapine. As each injection builds on the drug still being released from previous injections, concentrations increase gradually until a steady state is reached after ∼3 months. Concentrations were similar to oral olanzapine and proportional to the dose; the average steady-state concentrations (10th-90th percentile) for the 150, 210, and 300 mg/2-week doses were 16-32, 15-55, and 20-67 ng/ml, respectively, and those for the 300 and 405 mg/4-week doses were 19-48 and 19-62 ng/ml, respectively. Peak concentrations most often occurred at 2-4 days after injection. Peak-to-trough fluctuation was greater for the 4-week dosing interval than the 2-week one, with no apparent clinical ramifications for these differences. Trough concentrations were above the lower end of the therapeutic range, even at the first injection. Long-term use up to 6 years indicated no additional accumulation. The impact of smoking and sex was similar, but less pronounced than for oral olanzapine.