Applying novel methods to assess clinical outcomes: insights from the TRILOGY ACS trial.

AIMS: Several methods provide new insights into understanding clinical trial composite endpoints, using both conventional and novel methods. The TRILOGY ACS trial is used as a contemporary example to prospectively compare these methods side by side. METHODS AND RESULTS: The traditional time-to-first-event, Andersen-Gill recurrent events method, win ratio, and a weighted composite endpoint (WCE) are compared using the randomized, active-control TRILOGY ACS trial. This trial had a neutral result and randomized 9326 patients managed without coronary revascularization within 10 days of their acute coronary syndrome to receive either prasugrel or clopidogrel and followed them for up to 30 months. The traditional composite, win ratio, and WCE demonstrated no significant survival advantage for prasugrel, whereas the Andersen-Gill method demonstrated a statistical advantage for prasugrel [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72-0.97)]. The traditional composite used 73% of total patient events; 40% of these were derived from the death events. The win ratio used 66% of total events; deaths comprised 57% of these. Both Andersen-Gill and WCE methods used all events in all participants; however, with the Andersen-Gill method, death comprised 41% of the proportion of events, whereas with the WCE method, death comprised 64% of events. CONCLUSION: This study addresses the relative efficiency of various methods for assessing clinical trial events comprising the composite endpoint. The methods accounting for all events, in particular those incorporating their clinical relevance, appear most advantageous, and may be useful in interpreting future trials. This clinical and statistical advantage is especially evident with long-term follow-up where multiple non-fatal events are more common. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00699998.

Prasugrel versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes without revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The effect of intensified platelet inhibition for patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who do not undergo revascularization has not been delineated. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, in a primary analysis involving 7243 patients under the age of 75 years receiving aspirin, we evaluated up to 30 months of treatment with prasugrel (10 mg daily) versus clopidogrel (75 mg daily). In a secondary analysis involving 2083 patients 75 years of age or older, we evaluated 5 mg of prasugrel versus 75 mg of clopidogrel. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 17 months, the primary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke among patients under the age of 75 years occurred in 13.9% of the prasugrel group and 16.0% of the clopidogrel group (hazard ratio in the prasugrel group, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.05; P=0.21). Similar results were observed in the overall population. The prespecified analysis of multiple recurrent ischemic events (all components of the primary end point) suggested a lower risk for prasugrel among patients under the age of 75 years (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00; P=0.04). Rates of severe and intracranial bleeding were similar in the two groups in all age groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the frequency of nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events, except for a higher frequency of heart failure in the clopidogrel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.).

Impact of prasugrel pretreatment and timing of coronary artery bypass grafting on clinical outcomes of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: From the A Comparison of Prasugrel at PCI or Time of Diagnosis of Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (ACCOAST) study.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated impact of timing of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and prasugrel pretreatment in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing CABG in the ACCOAST study. METHODS: Of 4033 enrolled patients, 314 (7.8%) underwent isolated CABG through 30 days. Primary efficacy end point for this analysis was any cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor bailout through 30 days. RESULTS: More CABG versus percutaneous coronary intervention or medically managed patients were men, diabetic, or had peripheral arterial disease. Per randomization, 157 of 314 patients received a 30-mg prasugrel loading dose before CABG, and 157 of 314 received placebo. Patients were stratified by tertile of time from randomization to CABG: <2.98 days (n = 104), ≥2.98 and <6.95 days (n = 106), and ≥6.95 days (n = 104). Primary end point occurred in 12.5%, 4.7%, and 4.8%, respectively (<2.98 days vs other tertiles, hazard ratio [HR] = 2.80; P = .011). Similarly, the rate of all TIMI major bleeding was highest in the lowest tertile (26.0% vs 10.4% and 4.8%; P < .001), but no difference in all-cause death was observed through 30 days (3.9% vs 1.9% and 1.9%; P = .30). Time from randomization to CABG (HR = 0.84 for each day delay), left main disease (HR = 1.76), region of enrollment (Non-Eastern Europe vs Eastern Europe; HR = 3.83), but not prasugrel pretreatment and baseline troponin ≥3× upper limit of normal, were independent predictors of combined 30-day end point of all-cause death/myocardial infarction/stroke/TIMI major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In ACCOAST, early (<2.98 days) surgical revascularization carried increased risk of bleeding and ischemic complications without affecting all-cause mortality through 30 days. Baseline troponin and prasugrel pretreatment did not impact ischemic clinical outcomes.

Platelet function during extended prasugrel and clopidogrel therapy for patients with ACS treated without revascularization: the TRILOGY ACS platelet function substudy.

CONTEXT: The relationship of platelet function testing measurements with outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) initially managed medically without revascularization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the differences and evaluate clinical outcomes associated with platelet reactivity among patients with ACS treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Patients with medically managed unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were enrolled in the TRILOGY ACS trial (2008 to 2011) comparing clopidogrel vs prasugrel. Of 9326 participants, 27.5% were included in a platelet function substudy: 1286 treated with prasugrel and 1278 treated with clopidogrel. INTERVENTIONS: Aspirin with either prasugrel (10 or 5 mg/d) or clopidogrel (75 mg/d); those 75 years or older and younger than 75 years but who weighed less than 60 kg received a 5-mg prasugrel maintenance dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Platelet reactivity, measured in P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs), was performed at baseline, at 2 hours, and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months after randomization. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke through 30 months. RESULTS: Among participants younger than 75 years and weighing 60 kg or more, the median PRU values at 30 days were 64 (interquartile range [IQR], 33-128) in the prasugrel group vs 200 (IQR, 141-260) in the clopidogrel group (P < .001), a difference that persisted through all subsequent time points. For participants younger than 75 years and weighing less than 60 kg, the median 30-day PRU values were 139 (IQR, 86-203) for the prasugrel group vs 209 (IQR, 148-283) for the clopidogrel group (P < .001), and for participants 75 years or older, the median PRU values were 164 (IQR, 105-216) for the prasugrel group vs 222 (IQR, 148-268) for the clopidogrel group (P < .001). At 30 months the rate of the primary efficacy end point was 17.2% (160 events) in the prasugrel group vs 18.9% (180 events) in the clopidogrel group (P = .29). There were no significant differences in the continuous distributions of 30-day PRU values for participants with a primary efficacy end point event after 30 days (n = 214) compared with participants without an event (n = 1794; P = .07) and no significant relationship between the occurence of the primary efficacy end point and continuous PRU values (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for increase of 60 PRUs, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .44). Similar findings were observed with 30-day PRU cut points used to define high on-treatment platelet reactivity-PRU more than 208 (adjusted HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52, P = .28) and PRU more than 230 (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.61; P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ACS without ST-segment elevation and initially managed without revascularization, prasugrel was associated with lower platelet reactivity than clopidogrel, irrespective of age, weight, and dose. Among those in the platelet substudy, no significant differences existed between prasugrel vs clopidogrel in the occurence of the primary efficacy end point through 30 months and no significant association existed between platelet reactivity and occurrence of ischemic outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00699998.

Study design and rationale of a comparison of prasugrel and clopidogrel in medically managed patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the TaRgeted platelet Inhibition to cLarify the Optimal strateGy to medicallY manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial.

Practice guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) regardless of in-hospital management strategy. Prasugrel-a thienopyridine adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist that provides higher and less variable levels of platelet inhibition than clopidogrel-has demonstrated benefit when used to treat ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the optimal approach to antiplatelet therapy for high-risk, medically managed NSTE ACS patients remains uncertain, as these patients have not been the focus of previous clinical trials of these therapies. TRILOGY ACS is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial enrolling approximately 10,300 NSTE ACS patients within 10 days of presentation with either unstable angina or NSTE myocardial infarction who are not intended to undergo revascularization procedures for their index event. Patients will be randomly allocated to prasugrel + aspirin versus clopidogrel + aspirin for a median duration of 18 months. A reduction in the maintenance dose of prasugrel for elderly patients (age >or=75 years) and those with body weight <60 kg is planned. The primary composite efficacy end point will be time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke in patients aged <75 years. If the superiority of prasugrel is established in patients aged <75 years, the treatment arms will then be compared for all subjects (including those aged >or=75 years). TRILOGY ACS is the largest randomized clinical trial to date focusing exclusively on medically managed NSTE ACS patients and will provide important information regarding the optimal approach to oral antiplatelet therapy for this high-risk, understudied population.

Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination vs. lamotrigine in the 6-month treatment of bipolar I depression.

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) compared with lamotrigine (Lam) for long-term treatment of bipolar I depression, this 25-wk, randomized, double-blind study compared OFC (6/25, 6/50, 12/25, or 12/50 mg/d, n=205) with Lam titrated to 200 mg/d (n=205) in patients with bipolar I disorder, depressed. A protocol-specified analysis of 7-wk outcomes was previously reported. Outcome measures included Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) (primary), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores. OFC-treated patients had significantly greater improvement than Lam-treated patients over 25 wk on CGI-S (p=0.008), MADRS (p=0.005), and YMRS (p<0.001) scores, and from baseline across visits from week 5 (titration complete) to the end of the study on CGI-S (p=0.043), MADRS (p=0.017), and YMRS (p=0.001) scores. Of patients in remission after the 7-wk acute phase, there was no significant difference between treatment groups in the incidence of relapse (MADRS >15, p=0.528). Rate of treatment-emergent mania was not significantly different by treatment (p=0.401). OFC-treated patients had more frequent (p<0.05) somnolence, increased appetite, dry mouth, sedation, weight gain, and tremor; Lam-treated patients had more frequent insomnia. There was a significant difference in incidence of treatment-emergent cholesterol > or = 240 (p<0.001) and in weight gain of > or = 7% (p<0.001) in favour of the Lam group. Patients with bipolar I depression had significantly greater symptom improvement over 25 wk on OFC compared with Lam. There was no treatment difference in incidence of relapse. OFC-treated patients had more treatment-emergent adverse events and greater incidence of weight gain and hypercholesterolaemia.

Relationship Between Peak Troponin Values and Long-Term Ischemic Events Among Medically Managed Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between troponin level and outcomes among patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS is established, but the relationship of troponin level with long-term outcomes among medically managed non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients receiving contemporary antiplatelet therapy is inadequately defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 6763 medically managed non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients randomized in TRILOGY ACS (Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes) (prasugrel versus clopidogrel), we examined relationships between categories of peak troponin/upper limit of normal (ULN) ratio within 48 hours of the index ACS event (≈4.5 days before randomization) and 30-month outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; and all-cause death). Patients with peak troponin levels <1×ULN were younger, were more often women, and had lower GRACE risk scores than those in other troponin groups. Those with ratios ≥5×ULN were more frequently smokers but less often had prior myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention. Diabetes mellitus prevalence, body mass index, serum creatinine, and hemoglobin were similar across groups. For all end points, statistically significant differences in 30-month event rates were observed between peak troponin categories. The relationship was linear for 30-month mortality (<1×ULN, n=1849 [6.2%]; 1 to <3×ULN, n=1203 [9.6%]; 3 to <5×ULN, n=581 [10.8%]; and ≥5×ULN, n=3405 [12.8%]) but plateaued for composite end points beyond peak troponin values ≥3×ULN. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity in treatment effect by peak troponin ratio for any end point. CONCLUSIONS: Among medically managed non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients selected for medical management, there was a graded relationship between increasing peak troponin and long-term ischemic events but no heterogeneity of treatment effect for prasugrel versus clopidogrel according to peak troponin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00699998.

Clinical features of bipolar depression versus major depressive disorder in large multicenter trials.

OBJECTIVE: Failure to recognize bipolar disorder in patients who experience a major depressive episode may lead to inappropriate treatment and poorer outcomes. Clinical features that could distinguish bipolar from unipolar depression would facilitate more appropriate treatment selection. METHOD: The authors used data from nonpsychotic outpatients participating in three large multicenter clinical trials conducted in the United States for the treatment of major depressive episodes to compare 477 subjects with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and 1,074 with major depressive disorder. RESULTS: Bipolar depression was associated with family history of bipolar disorder, an earlier age at onset, a greater previous number of depressive episodes, and eight individual symptom items on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. Fears were more common in patients with bipolar disorder, whereas sadness; insomnia; intellectual (cognitive), somatic (muscular), respiratory, genitourinary complaints; and depressed behavior were more common in patients with unipolar depression. A logistic regression model correctly classified 86.9% of the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar depression and major depressive disorder exhibit subtle differences in presentation, which may help guide the initial diagnosis.

A 7-week, randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination versus lamotrigine in the treatment of bipolar I depression.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) for treatment of acute bipolar I depression compared with lamotrigine. METHOD: The 7-week, acute phase of a randomized, double-blind study compared OFC (6/25, 6/50, 12/25, or 12/50 mg/day; N = 205) with lamotrigine ([LMG] titrated to 200 mg/day; N = 205) in patients with DSM-IV-diagnosed bipolar I disorder, depressed. The study was conducted from November 2003 to August 2004. RESULTS: Completion rates were similar between treatments (OFC, 66.8% vs. LMG, 65.4%; p = .835). OFC-treated patients had significantly greater improvement than lamotrigine-treated patients in change from baseline across the 7-week treatment period on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (primary outcome) (p = .002, effect size = 0.26), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (p = .002, effect size = 0.24), and Young Mania Rating Scale total scores (p = .001, effect size = 0.24). Response rates did not significantly differ between groups when defined as > or = 50% reduction in MADRS score (OFC, 68.8% vs. LMG, 59.7%; p = .073). Time to response was significantly shorter for OFC-treated patients (median days [95% CI] = OFC, 17 [14 to 22] vs. LMG, 23 [21 to 34]; p = .010). There was a significant difference in incidence of "suicidal and self-injurious behavior" adverse events (OFC, 0.5% vs. LMG, 3.4%; p = .037). Somnolence, increased appetite, dry mouth, sedation, weight gain, and tremor occurred more frequently (p < .05) in OFC-treated patients than lamotrigine-treated patients. Weight, total cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were significantly elevated in OFC-treated patients compared with lamotrigine-treated patients (all p < or = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acute bipolar I depression had statistically significantly greater improvement in depressive and manic symptoms, more treatment-emergent adverse events, greater weight gain, and some elevated metabolic factors with OFC than lamotrigine. Treatment differences were of modest size.

Clinical relevance of depressive symptom improvement in bipolar I depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: Gaps remain between rating scale changes obtained in a clinical trial and what those results mean in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relevance of results from a clinical trial we examined the relationship between rating scale measures and the clinicians' assessment of illness severity. METHODS: Data from a randomized double-blind 8-week study of bipolar I depression were examined post hoc in patients who received placebo (PLA, n = 355), olanzapine (n = 351) (OLZ, 5 to 20 mg/d), or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (n = 82) (OFC, 6 and 25, 6 and 50, or 12 and 50 mg/d). Principal components analysis identified related symptoms (factors) from Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item scores. Regression analysis examined baseline to endpoint changes in factor scores and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores. Mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis assessed differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: MADRS factors identified were: sadness, negative thoughts, detachment, and neurovegetative symptoms. Factor and CGI scores were significantly reduced from baseline to endpoint (LOCF) in the combination therapy group as compared with placebo (p < .01). Changes in factor scores were highly correlated (p < .001) with changes in the CGI. Over 80% of this treatment effect was attributable to indirect effects of improvements in the MADRS factors, the remaining difference could not be explained even when changes in the YMRS and HAMA scores were included in the analytical model. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in MADRS factors were closely aligned with the clinician's assessment of overall depression severity, which may suggest a high degree of clinical relevance for differences observed between treatments.

Fluoxetine 40-60 mg versus fluoxetine 20 mg in the treatment of children and adolescents with a less-than-complete response to nine-week treatment with fluoxetine 10-20 mg: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare fluoxetine dosage titration to 40-60 mg/day with fixed fluoxetine 20-mg/day treatment for an additional 10 weeks in pediatric outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had not met protocol-defined response criteria after 9-week acute fluoxetine treatment. METHODS: Patients unresponsive (less than or equal to 30% decrease in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised [CDRS-R] score) after 9-week fluoxetine treatment were randomly reassigned to continue at 20 mg/day or to increase to 40 mg/day. After 4 weeks, patients unresponsive to 40 mg/day could receive 60 mg/day. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (29) patients, 9-17 years of age, received fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day (n = 14) or 20 mg/day (n = 15). At the conclusion of this study phase, 10 patients (71%) on 40-60 mg/day met the response criteria, versus 5 patients (36%) on 20 mg/day (p = 0.128). Mean CDRS-R scores improved in both treatment groups (fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day, -9.4; fluoxetine 20 mg/day, -1.5; p = 0.099). Adverse events were similar in both groups. However, this study phase was statistically underpowered for detecting differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: More than two thirds of patients whose dosage was increased responded within 10 weeks, suggesting dose escalation may benefit some patients. Approximately one third of patients unresponsive to initial treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg responded to this fixed dosage within another 10 weeks. Fluoxetine 20-60 mg/day was well tolerated.

Duloxetine 60 mg once-daily in the treatment of painful physical symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: While emotional symptoms such as depressed mood and loss of interest have traditionally been considered to constitute the core symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD), the prevalence and importance of painful physical symptoms such as back pain, abdominal pain, and musculoskeletal pain is becoming increasingly appreciated. Antidepressants possessing dual serotonin/norepinephrine (5-HT/NE) reuptake inhibition may demonstrate greater efficacy in the alleviation of pain. The efficacy of duloxetine, a balanced and potent dual reuptake inhibitor of 5-HT and NE, was evaluated within a cohort of depressed patients with associated painful physical symptoms. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD were randomized to receive placebo (N=141) or duloxetine 60 mg QD (N=141). Patients were required to have a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) total score 15, a Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) score 4, and a Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Average Pain score 2 at baseline. The primary efficacy measure was the BPI Average Pain score, while secondary measures included other BPI items, the HAMD17 total score, CGI-S, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale, Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, and the Symptom Questionnaire, Somatic Subscale (SQSS). Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (spontaneously reported), vital signs, and laboratory analytes. RESULTS: Mean changes in BPI Average Pain for duloxetine- and placebo-treated patients differed significantly at most visits, but only approached significance at endpoint p=0.066. For the main effect of treatment (pooling all visits), significant advantages for duloxetine-treated patients were found in 10 of 11 assessed BPI pain severity and pain interference items, in addition to VAS overall pain and back pain. Mean changes in pain measures for duloxetine-treated patients corresponded to improvements of 25-50%, compared with 19-39% for placebo. Mean changes at endpoint in depression rating scales (HAMD17, CGI-S, PGI-I) did not differ significantly between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups due to unusually high placebo response. The magnitude of placebo treatment effects (as measured by HAMD17 total score and Maier subscale) was significantly smaller in patients with 1 previous depressive episode, compared to those patients with no previous episodes. In patients with 1 previous depressive episode the advantage of duloxetine over placebo was similar to previous studies. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were 14.2% vs. 2.1% for duloxetine and placebo, respectively p<0.001. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported at a significantly higher rate by duloxetine-treated patients included nausea, dry mouth, fatigue, and decreased appetite. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, duloxetine (60 mg QD) was shown to be an effective treatment for the painful physical symptoms which are frequently associated with depression. Improvements in pain severity occurred independently of changes in depressive symptom severity.

Rapid versus non-rapid cycling as a predictor of response to olanzapine and divalproex sodium for bipolar mania and maintenance of remission: post hoc analyses of 47-week data.

BACKGROUND: Rapid cycling in bipolar disorder has been associated with greater morbidity. We examine whether rapid cycling affects treatment response to olanzapine or divalproex in acute mania. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of a 47-week, randomized, double-blind study compared olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) to divalproex sodium (500-2500 mg/day) for bipolar manic or mixed episodes (N=251). Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores > or = 20 were required for inclusion. Patients were classified at study entry as "rapid cyclers" if they experienced > or = 4 episodes within the last year. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze YMRS change from baseline. RESULTS: A significant three-way interaction (cycling frequency by medication by visit) was found when modeling change in YMRS total scores. For patients with bipolar I disorder identified as rapid cyclers, mania improvement across the trial did not differ significantly between treatment groups (p=0.181). Among non-rapid cyclers, olanzapine-treated patients had significantly greater YMRS improvement than divalproex-treated patients across the trial (p<0.001) and at most time points. Among olanzapine-treated patients, non-rapid cyclers experienced numerically greater YMRS improvement than rapid cyclers throughout the trial; statistically significant differences occurred at weeks 11, 15 and 39. In contrast, among divalproex-treated patients, YMRS scores were significantly better in rapid cyclers than non-rapid cyclers during the first two study weeks but were comparable thereafter. A similar pattern was seen in Clinical Global Impressions-Mania Severity scores. Hamilton Depression scores in rapid versus non-rapid cycling patients differed at some time points but not over the entire trial and differences by cycling status were not treatment-specific. LIMITATIONS: Apart from the post hoc nature of the analyses, there were high dropout rates in both groups, and cycle frequency was not taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid cycling patients did less well over long-term treatment than non-rapid cycling patients. Among rapid cycling patients, olanzapine and divalproex appear similarly effective against manic symptoms; however, among non-rapid cycling patients, olanzapine-treated patients experienced superior mania improvement. Olanzapine-treated, non-rapid cyclers experienced greater mania improvement than rapid cyclers. The converse was true of divalproex-treated patients early in treatment.

Predictors of bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with prasugrel.

BACKGROUND: When considering antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), it is essential to balance benefits (less thrombotic/ischaemic events) versus bleeding risks related to intense platelet inhibition via antagonism of P2Y12 receptors. This analysis aimed to identify predictors of bleeding events among A Comparison of Prasugrel at the Time of PCI or as Pretreatment at the Time of Diagnosis in Patients with NSTEACS (ACCOAST) study population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ACCOAST study randomised 4033 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) to (A) a 30 mg prasugrel loading dose (LD) followed by coronary angiography with an additional 30 mg prasugrel at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or (B) a placebo LD followed by a 60 mg prasugrel at the time of PCI. Patients received standard of care, including use of aspirin. Independent predictors of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding not related to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) within 7 days were assessed using stepwise Cox proportional model for time to first occurrence of the event. Non-CABG-related TIMI major or minor bleeding was similarly analysed. Non-CABG-related TIMI major bleeding occurred in 36 (0.9%) patients, and TIMI major or minor bleeding occurred in 81 (2.0%) patients. Independent predictors for TIMI major bleeding alone were pretreatment with prasugrel LD (HR 3.02; 95% CI 1.42 to 6.43), femoral access (HR 2.45; 95% CI 1.11 to 5.38), female sex (HR 2.57; 95% CI 1.32 to 5.00), placement of >1 stent (HR 2.50; 95% CI 1.26 to 4.95) and age (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09). Pretreatment with prasugrel LD (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.84 to 5.07), femoral access (HR 3.06; 95% CI 1.74 to 5.38), female sex (HR 2.62; 95% CI 1.67 to 4.12), performed PCI (HR 2.21; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.99), therapy with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.06 to 3.33) and age (increased bleed per year of age HR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06) were independent predictors of TIMI major or minor bleeding through 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment, age, gender and procedural variables predicted bleeding risk in patients with NSTEMI. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT01015287.

Olanzapine versus divalproex sodium for the treatment of acute mania and maintenance of remission: a 47-week study.

OBJECTIVE: Few double-blind trials have compared longer-term efficacy and safety of medications for bipolar disorder. The authors report a 47-week comparison of olanzapine and divalproex. METHOD: This 47-week, randomized, double-blind study compared flexibly dosed olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) to divalproex (500-2500 mg/day) for manic or mixed episodes of bipolar disorder (N=251). The only other psychoactive medication allowed was lorazepam for agitation. The primary efficacy instrument was the Young Mania Rating Scale; a priori protocol-defined threshold scores were > or =20 for inclusion, < or =12 for remission, and > or = 15 for relapse. Analytical techniques included mixed model repeated-measures analysis of variance for change from baseline, Fisher's exact test (two-tailed) for categorical comparisons, and Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to events of interest. RESULTS: Over 47 weeks, mean improvement in Young Mania Rating Scale score was significantly greater for the olanzapine group. Median time to symptomatic mania remission was significantly shorter for olanzapine, 14 days, than for divalproex, 62 days. There were no significant differences between treatments in the rates of symptomatic mania remission over the 47 weeks (56.8% and 45.5%, respectively) and subsequent relapse into mania or depression (42.3% and 56.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring significantly more frequently during olanzapine treatment were somnolence, dry mouth, increased appetite, weight gain, akathisia, and high alanine aminotransferase levels; those for divalproex were nausea and nervousness. CONCLUSIONS: In this 47-week study of acute bipolar mania, symptomatic remission occurred sooner and overall mania improvement was greater for olanzapine than for divalproex, but rates of bipolar relapse did not differ.

Switching patients from daily citalopram, paroxetine, or sertraline to once-weekly fluoxetine in the maintenance of response for depression.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is frequently a chronic, recurrent condition necessitating maintenance treatment. For some patients, compliance with daily pharmacotherapy is difficult over time. As an alternative approach, a once-weekly administered formulation of fluoxetine has recently been made available. This raises the important question of whether once-weekly enteric-coated fluoxetine, 90 mg, is effective for maintenance of response in patients whose depressive symptoms have responded to daily dosing with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as citalopram, paroxetine, or sertraline. METHOD: Patients had met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder prior to beginning treatment for their current episode, had received 6 to 52 weeks of treatment with citalopram (20-40 mg/day [N = 83]), paroxetine (20 mg/day [N = 77]), or sertraline (50-100 mg/day [N = 86]), and had responded to that treatment (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness [CGI-S] score < or = 2, modified 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D-17] score < or = 10). Patients meeting these criteria (N = 246) continued treatment with their current SSRI for 1 week, then were switched to open-label enteric-coated fluoxetine, 90 mg, taken once weekly for 12 weeks. Safety measures were comparisons of spontaneously reported and solicited treatment-emergent adverse events. Efficacy measures were percentages of patients who discontinued the study for relapse and lack of efficacy and comparison of change from baseline to endpoint in scores on the modified HAM-D-17, subscales of the HAM-D-28, and the CGI-S. Quality of life measures were assessed with the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). We hypothesized that the once-weekly administration of fluoxetine could be safely and effectively initiated among subjects who had been stabilized on daily SSRI treatment. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of patients successfully completed a switch to enteric-coated fluoxetine, 90 mg, with 9.3% discontinuing due to relapse or lack of efficacy. Enteric-coated fluoxetine at a once-weekly dose of 90 mg was well tolerated in all groups. No significant increases were found in the HAM-D-17 total, HAM-D-28 subscores, or CGI-S score. Patients showed improvement from baseline to endpoint in most of the SF-36 health concepts. CONCLUSION: Enteric-coated fluoxetine taken once weekly appears to be well tolerated and efficacious in patients who responded to acute therapy with other SSRIs and were subsequently switched to fluoxetine once weekly for continuation/maintenance therapy.

Fluoxetine versus placebo in posttraumatic stress disorder.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to address the efficacy and tolerability of fluoxetine in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as diagnosed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders and the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). The patient population included both civilians and combat veterans. METHOD: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study conducted in Europe, Israel, and South Africa, primarily in war-torn countries. Patients were predominantly male (81%) and white (91%), with 48% exposed to a combat-related traumatic episode. Patients were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of acute treatment with fluoxetine, 20 to 80 mg/day (N = 226), or placebo (N = 75). The primary efficacy measurement was the mean change from baseline in the Treatment Outcome PTSD rating scale (TOP-8) total score, which was analyzed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. Secondary assessments included the CAPS, the Davidson Trauma Scale, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S), the CGI-Improvement scale (CGI-I), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and the Hopkins 90-Item Symptom Checklist-Revised. RESULTS: Fluoxetine was associated with a greater improvement from baseline in total TOP-8 score than was placebo. This difference was statistically significant by week 6 of treatment (p < .001) through the end of the acute phase of the study (week 12; p = .006). Compared with placebo, fluoxetine was also associated with significantly greater improvement in CAPS total score as well as intrusive and hyperarousal subscores and in CGI-S, CGI-I, HAM-A, and MADRS scores (p < .05). The presence of dissociative symptoms at baseline appeared to be a predictor of high placebo response. The mean fluoxetine dose at endpoint was 57 mg. There were no clinically significant safety differences. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of PTSD. Most PTSD patients will respond satisfactorily at doses in the upper normal range for the usual antidepressant doses of fluoxetine.

An excitement subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.

BACKGROUND: We sought to develop and validate an excitement subscale from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) to allow the investigation of mania-like excitement symptoms in clinical trials of patients with schizophrenia using the PANSS and to provide clinicians with a short assessment tool for these states. METHODS: Baseline PANSS data from six double-blind, randomized registration trials of olanzapine, three in schizophrenia and three in acute bipolar mania, were used in these post-hoc analyses. Schizophrenia study data were pooled and randomly split in half. Exploratory principal component factor analysis was performed on half of the data. Factors were extracted based on minimum eigenvalue criteria (eigenvalue> or =1); loadings were determined using an equamax rotation. Confirmatory principal component factor analysis was performed on the other half of the data, retaining the original number of factors. Principal component factor analysis was also done for the pooled bipolar studies. Change in the new mania-like factor scores was then correlated with Young Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) scores in each bipolar study. RESULTS: Exploratory principal components analysis on the pooled schizophrenia data extracted five factors: negative, positive, excitement, cognitive, and depressive factors. The mania-like excitement factor was represented by four items (uncooperativeness, poor impulse control, excitement, and hostility), with only moderate loadings by tension and suspiciousness/persecution. Results were similar in the confirmatory analysis and the pooled bipolar studies. Change from baseline to endpoint for the mania-like factor correlated reasonably well (0.64-0.78) with change in Y-MRS scores in the bipolar studies. At baseline, bipolar patients scored higher than patients with schizophrenia on three of four PANSS mania-like factor items: poor impulse control, excitement, and hostility; the converse was true for most other PANSS items. CONCLUSION: Factor analyses of the PANSS consistently uncovered an excitement factor including uncooperativeness, poor impulse control, excitement, and hostility items. This factor may be useful in examining manic symptoms in studies where the addition of a scale specific to mania would be burdensome and where symptoms of excitement are part of the clinical presentation.